How to cite item

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?

   
@article{TAU29700,
	author = {Douglas A. Husmann and Boyd R. Viers},
	title = {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?},
	journal = {Translational Andrology and Urology},
	volume = {9},
	number = {1},
	year = {2019},
	keywords = {},
	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 },
	issn = {2223-4691},	url = {https://tau.amegroups.org/article/view/29700}
}