Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of refluxing ureter in the creation of a Mitrofanoff channel in children undergoing bladder augmentation: is a formal reimplantation necessary?

  • Original article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To study the fate of a refluxing ureteral stump used as a Mitrofanoff channel (MC) for clean intermittent catheterization (CIC), without reimplantation in augmented bladders. Ten boys and seven girls, 1–14 years old (mean 6.5 years) seen in period 1998–2005, underwent creation of MC using refluxing or potentially refluxing ureters. Concomitant bladder augmentation (BA) was performed for various abnormalities of lower urinary tract, including exstrophy epispadias complex, neurogenic bladder cloaca and posterior urethral valve. The uretero-vesical junction was maintained intact during creation of the MC. Follow-up period ranged from 2–72 months (mean 32.5 months). Satisfactory CIC was possible in 14 children while in two children the stoma became obstructed due to non-usage. Urinary leak via the ureteric MC was seen in only one patient who partially responded to anticholinergic therapy and a shortened CIC interval but this needed to be formally closed subsequently. A refluxing ureter can be used in the creation of a MC without formal reimplantation in the majority of children undergoing BA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mitrofanoff P (1980) Cystostomie continent trans-appendeniculaire dans Ie traitement des vessies neurologiques (Trans-appendicular continent cystostomy in the management of the neurogenic bladder). Chir Paediatr 21:297–305

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Duckett JW, Snyder HM III (1986) Continent urinary diversion: variation on the Mitrofanoff principle. J Urol 136:58–62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Duckett JW, Snyder HM III (1987) The Mitrofanoff principle in continent urinary reservoirs. Sem Urol 5:55–62

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rink RC, Mark PC (2002) Urinary diversion. In: Belman AB, King LR, Kramer SA (eds) Clinical paediatric urology, chap 17, 4th edn. Martin Dunitz, pp 491–528

  5. Sen S ,Ahmed S (1998) Construction of continent catheterisable urinary conduit from an isolated segment of colon. Aust NZ J Surg 68:367–368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dykes EH, Duffy PG, Ransley PG (1991) The use of the Mitrofanoff principle in achieving clean intermittent catheterization and urinary continence in children. J Paed Surg 26(5):535–538

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kondo A, Kobayashi M, Otani T, Takita T, Mitsuya H (1983) Children with unstable bladder: clinical and urodynamic observation. J Urol 129:88–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tanagho EA, Hutch JA, Meyers FH (1965) Primary vesico-ureteral reflux: experimental studies of its etiology. J Urol 93:165–176

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Watson HS, Bauer SB, Peters CA, Mandell J, Colodny AH, Atala A, Retik AB (1995) Comparitive urodynamics of appendiceal and ureteral Mitrofanoff conduits in children. J Urol 154:878–882

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hendren WH, Hendren RB (1990) Bladder augmentation: experience with 129 children and young adults. J Urol 144:445–453

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Morioka A, Miyano T, Ando K, Yamataka T, Lane GJ (1998) Management of vesico ureteral reflux secondary to neurogenic bladder. Pediatr Surg Int 13:584–586

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Agarwal SK, Khoury AE, Abramson RP, Churchill BM, Argiropoulos G, McLorie GA (1997) Outcome analysis of vesico ureteral reflux in children with myelo dysplasia. J Urol 157:980–982

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pereira PL, Urrutia MJM, Romera RL, Jaureguizar E (2001) Should we treat vesicoureteral reflux in patients who simultaneously undergo bladder augmentation for neuropathic bladder? J Urol 165:2259–2261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Soylet Y, Emir H, Ilce Z, Yesildag E, Buyukunal SNC, Danismend N (2004) Quo vadis? Ureteric reimplantation or ignoring reflux during augmentation cystoplasty. BJU International 94:379–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nasrallah PF, Aliabadi HA (1991) Bladder augmentation in patients with neurogenic bladder and vesicoureteral reflux. J Urol 146:563–566

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Christian Medical College and Hospital, 632004, Vellore, TN, India

    Parag Tapre, Sudipta Sen, Jacob Chacko & Sampath Karl

Authors
  1. Parag Tapre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sudipta Sen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacob Chacko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sampath Karl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sudipta Sen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tapre, P., Sen, S., Chacko, J. et al. The use of refluxing ureter in the creation of a Mitrofanoff channel in children undergoing bladder augmentation: is a formal reimplantation necessary?. Ped Surgery Int 22, 250–254 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-005-1552-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-005-1552-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation