Original Article
Neurogenic bladder: management of the severely impaired patient with complete urethral destruction: ileovesicostomy, suprapubic tube drainage or urinary diversion—is one treatment modality better than another?
Abstract
Background: Management of the severely impaired patient (pt) with a neurogenic bladder (NGB) and complete urethral destruction employs three therapeutic options; bladder neck closure (BNC) with ileovesicostomy, BNC with suprapubic tube (SPT) placement or in pts with an end-stage bladder, cystectomy with enteric conduit diversion. This paper was performed to test the hypothesis that pts managed with an ileovesicostomy would have the best long-term prognosis.
Methods: Patients with a NGB and complete urethral destruction managed between 1986–2018 were reviewed. Three treatment populations were assessed, pts treated with BNC with ileovesicostomy, BNC with SPT placement or cystectomy with enteric conduit diversion. A minimal follow-up interval of 2 years was necessary to be entered into the study. The number of uroseptic episodes, development of urolithiasis, the onset of new renal scars, ≥ stage 3 chronic renal failure, or need for additional surgery were recorded. Statistical evaluations used either chi-squared contingency table analysis, Fisher’s exact 2-tailed tests, or Kaplan-Meier curve analysis where indicated. P values of <0.05 were considered significant.
Results: Ten pts were managed by cystectomy, and enteric conduit, 17 by BNC and ileovesicostomy and 21 by BNC and SPT placement, median follow up of 8 yrs (range, 2–30 yrs). No significant differences between the three groups regarding the development of urolithiasis (30%, 3/10 pts; 53%, 9/17 pts; 52%, 11/21 pts; respectively), new onset of renal scarring (30%, 6/20 kidneys; 41%, 14/34 kidneys; 45%, 19/42 kidneys; respectively) or stage 3 chronic renal failure (40%, 4/10 pts; 47%, 8/17 pts; 24%, 5/21 pts; respectively. However, the number of hospitalizations for uroseptic episodes significantly increased in patients managed with an ileal conduit (60%, 6/10 pts) and ileovesicostomy (82%; 14/17 pts) compared to those maintained with a SPT (29%, 6/21 pts) P=0.025 and 0.006, respectively. When evaluating the need for delayed surgical intervention due to either urolithiasis or other complications, a total of 50% (5/10 pts) of the patients managed by an ileal conduit, 88% (15/17 pts) of the ileovesicostomy and 52% (11/21 pts) of the patients with a SPT required additional operations. In essence, significantly more pts undergoing BNC and ileovesicostomy required delayed surgical interventions for complications arising from the surgery compared to patients managed with either a cystectomy and ileal conduit (P=0.0285) or BNC and SPT placement (P=0.0180).
Conclusions: In severely impaired pts with a NGB and urinary outlet destruction, BNC and ileovesicostomy are associated with a significantly increased incidence of urosepsis and late surgical complications that required operative intervention compared to alternative treatments. This finding has resulted in the abandonment of the ileovesicostomy from our surgical armamentarium.
Methods: Patients with a NGB and complete urethral destruction managed between 1986–2018 were reviewed. Three treatment populations were assessed, pts treated with BNC with ileovesicostomy, BNC with SPT placement or cystectomy with enteric conduit diversion. A minimal follow-up interval of 2 years was necessary to be entered into the study. The number of uroseptic episodes, development of urolithiasis, the onset of new renal scars, ≥ stage 3 chronic renal failure, or need for additional surgery were recorded. Statistical evaluations used either chi-squared contingency table analysis, Fisher’s exact 2-tailed tests, or Kaplan-Meier curve analysis where indicated. P values of <0.05 were considered significant.
Results: Ten pts were managed by cystectomy, and enteric conduit, 17 by BNC and ileovesicostomy and 21 by BNC and SPT placement, median follow up of 8 yrs (range, 2–30 yrs). No significant differences between the three groups regarding the development of urolithiasis (30%, 3/10 pts; 53%, 9/17 pts; 52%, 11/21 pts; respectively), new onset of renal scarring (30%, 6/20 kidneys; 41%, 14/34 kidneys; 45%, 19/42 kidneys; respectively) or stage 3 chronic renal failure (40%, 4/10 pts; 47%, 8/17 pts; 24%, 5/21 pts; respectively. However, the number of hospitalizations for uroseptic episodes significantly increased in patients managed with an ileal conduit (60%, 6/10 pts) and ileovesicostomy (82%; 14/17 pts) compared to those maintained with a SPT (29%, 6/21 pts) P=0.025 and 0.006, respectively. When evaluating the need for delayed surgical intervention due to either urolithiasis or other complications, a total of 50% (5/10 pts) of the patients managed by an ileal conduit, 88% (15/17 pts) of the ileovesicostomy and 52% (11/21 pts) of the patients with a SPT required additional operations. In essence, significantly more pts undergoing BNC and ileovesicostomy required delayed surgical interventions for complications arising from the surgery compared to patients managed with either a cystectomy and ileal conduit (P=0.0285) or BNC and SPT placement (P=0.0180).
Conclusions: In severely impaired pts with a NGB and urinary outlet destruction, BNC and ileovesicostomy are associated with a significantly increased incidence of urosepsis and late surgical complications that required operative intervention compared to alternative treatments. This finding has resulted in the abandonment of the ileovesicostomy from our surgical armamentarium.
