PD33-02 CONTEMPORARY MULTICENTER OUTCOMES COMPARING CUTANEOUS CATHETERIZABLE ILEOCECOCYSTOPLASTY TO ILEOCYSTOPLASTY WITH A TUNNELED CATHETERIZABLE CHANNEL IN THE ADULT POPULATION: A NEUROGENIC BLADDER RESEARCH GROUP (NBRG) STUDY

You have accessJournal of UrologyTrauma/Reconstruction/Diversion: Ureter (including Pyeloplasty) and Bladder Reconstruction (including fistula), Augmentation, Substitution, Diversion I (PD33)1 Apr 2019PD33-02 CONTEMPORARY MULTICENTER OUTCOMES COMPARING CUTANEOUS CATHETERIZABLE ILEOCECOCYSTOPLASTY TO ILEOCYSTOPLASTY WITH A TUNNELED CATHETERIZABLE CHANNEL IN THE ADULT POPULATION: A NEUROGENIC BLADDER RESEARCH GROUP (NBRG) STUDY Philip Cheng*, Sorena Keihani, Sanchita Bose, Rose Khavari, Sean Elliott, Joseph Pariser, Joshua Roth, Blayne Welk, Michael Kennelly, Cameron Futral, David Ginsberg, Christopher Elliott, Kyla Valaer, Sara Lenherr, Yahir Santiago-Lastra, John Stoffel, and Jeremy Myers Philip Cheng*Philip Cheng* More articles by this author , Sorena KeihaniSorena Keihani More articles by this author , Sanchita BoseSanchita Bose More articles by this author , Rose KhavariRose Khavari More articles by this author , Sean ElliottSean Elliott More articles by this author , Joseph PariserJoseph Pariser More articles by this author , Joshua RothJoshua Roth More articles by this author , Blayne WelkBlayne Welk More articles by this author , Michael KennellyMichael Kennelly More articles by this author , Cameron FutralCameron Futral More articles by this author , David GinsbergDavid Ginsberg More articles by this author , Christopher ElliottChristopher Elliott More articles by this author , Kyla ValaerKyla Valaer More articles by this author , Sara LenherrSara Lenherr More articles by this author , Yahir Santiago-LastraYahir Santiago-Lastra More articles by this author , John StoffelJohn Stoffel More articles by this author , and Jeremy MyersJeremy Myers More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556146.41307.a9AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In cutaneous catheterizable ileocecocystoplasty (CCIC), the bladder is augmented with cecum and ascending colon and the catheterizable channel is created using tapered terminal ileum and plication of the ileocecal valve, while in ileocystoplasty (IC) small bowel is used for augmentation and a catheterizable channel made of small bowel, large bowel, or appendix is tunneled into the bladder wall creating a continence valve. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of these 2 techniques in the adult population. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 151 patients from 7 sites in North America from NBRG who underwent bladder augmentation with a catheterizable channel between July 2007 and September 2017 using either CCIC or IC. 20 patients were excluded due to age <18 (1) or follow-up < 6 months (19). We evaluated patient demographics, modality and type of surgery, 90-day complications and readmissions, follow-up surgeries, and abandonment of channels. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients with a median age of 38 years were included in the study; 104 (79%) underwent CCIC and 27 (21%) underwent IC with a catheterizable channel. 46 (35%) were male, and spinal cord injury was the leading etiology (59, 45%). Prior to surgery, most patients’ bladder management was indwelling urethral catheter or suprapubic tube (59, 45%) followed by clean intermittent catheterization (49, 37%). There were no statistically significant differences between CCIC and IC patients for major complications (13% vs. 4%, p = 0.31) or 90-day readmissions (21% vs. 7%, p = 0.16). During the follow-up period (median 41.5 months), 22 (21%) CCIC patients underwent catheterizable channels revision surgery vs. 8 (30%) IC patients (p = 0.44). 5 (5%) CCIC patients ultimately abandoned their channels vs. 1 (4%) IC patient (p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first contemporary multicenter series comparing two different techniques for bladder augmentation in the adult population. CCIC patients had more post-operative complications and readmissions than IC patients, but these differences were not statistically significant. Source of Funding: None Salt Lake City, UT; Houston, TX; Minneapolis, MN; London, Canada; Chapel Hill, NC; Los Angeles, CA; San Jose, CA; Palo Alto, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; San Diego, CA; Ann Arbor, MI; Salt Lake City, UT© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e577-e577 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Philip Cheng* More articles by this author Sorena Keihani More articles by this author Sanchita Bose More articles by this author Rose Khavari More articles by this author Sean Elliott More articles by this author Joseph Pariser More articles by this author Joshua Roth More articles by this author Blayne Welk More articles by this author Michael Kennelly More articles by this author Cameron Futral More articles by this author David Ginsberg More articles by this author Christopher Elliott More articles by this author Kyla Valaer More articles by this author Sara Lenherr More articles by this author Yahir Santiago-Lastra More articles by this author John Stoffel More articles by this author Jeremy Myers More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.