PubMed · 8973664
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D A Canning. 1996. Bladder exstrophy: the case for primary bladder reconstruction.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(96)00538-9
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
We report a new method of repair of exstrophy-epispadias complex (EEC) at a second stage by using flaps from the skin between the penis and scrotum (the clitoris and labia majora in females) used in seven patients. The non-pigmented skin between the penis and scrotum in males or a band of skin between the clitoris and labia majora in female is mobilized in two flaps, which are rotated superiorly. Five patients were treated primarily by this method and two patients at the time of secondary reconstruction. There were six boys and one girl. Two patients were post-pubertal, one male and one female. Follow-up (6-12 months) revealed good cosmetic and functional results. If EEC is repaired in a single stage, the entire pelvic diaphragm is visualized from inside and the sphincters can be reconstructed around the bladder neck. This procedure gives better exposure of attachments of the corporal bodies to the pubic rami, allowing easier mobilization. The bulbospongiosus muscle can be reconstructed. A normal penoscrotal relation is achieved in male patients. The root of the scrotum, which is splayed out and wide, narrows. Rotation of the flaps superiorly normalizes the symphyseal area. In female patients the appearance of the mons pubis is satisfactory. In post-pubertal children the pubic hair distribution appears normal.
True duplicate exstrophy is a rare and interesting congenital anomaly. We are adding a case to the previously reported seven cases in the world literature.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the impact of reconstructive bladder procedures on the upper urinary tract in bladder/cloacal exstrophy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 57 patients underwent bladder neck procedures for urinary incontinence due to bladder exstrophy between 1988 and 2001. We correlated evidence of renal injury to urinary continence and type of surgery. Renal scarring and moderate/severe hydronephrosis were considered significant upper tract changes. RESULTS: Overall 27 patients (47%) underwent bladder neck closure, 38 (67%) augmentation cystoplasty and 44 (77%) a Mitrofanoff procedure. Mean interval since last continence procedure was 4.5 years and mean patient age at last followup was 11.7 years. Hydronephrosis was noted in 18 patients (32%) at last followup (after bladder neck reconstruction in 15). Renal scarring in 14 cases on dimercapto-succinic acid scan was evenly distributed regardless of the type of bladder neck procedure or presence of augmentation. Of 6 patients with grade 3 to 4 hydronephrosis 5 had renal scarring versus only 1 in the 39 without hydronephrosis (p <0.0001). Serum creatinine remained normal in 55 patients, mild renal insufficiency developed in 1 and renal transplantation was performed in 1. Two patients with persistent incontinence are anticipating an augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: Of our 57 patients with exstrophy 14 (24%) had significant upper tract damage in the form of renal scarring and/or moderate or severe hydronephrosis. The surgical method of achieving continence was not predictive of hydronephrosis or scarring. Bladder neck closure appears to provide better urinary continence and was equally safe with respect to hydronephrosis or scarring compared to patent forms of bladder neck reconstruction.