Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Should simultaneous ureteral reimplantation be performed during sigmoid bladder augmentation to reduce vesicoureteral reflux in neurogenic bladder cases?

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the necessity of performing simultaneous collateral reimplantation during sigmoid bladder augmentation (SBA) to reduce vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) in low-compliance neuropathic bladder with associated VUR.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 31 patients who underwent SBA alone or with simultaneous ureteral reimplantation at our hospital. The video urodynamics data, VUR status, renal function, and clinical symptoms were studied during follow-up.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 57 months (range 12–117). All patients displayed significantly increased safe cystometric capacity (P < 0.001) and bladder compliance (P < 0.001) and decreased creatinine (P < 0.01) and urea nitrogen (P < 0.05) compared with preoperative levels. High-grade VUR was resolved in only 7 of 15 patients (47 %) in Group A (simultaneous ureteral reimplantation), whereas low-grade VUR was resolved in 13 of 16 patients (81 %) in Group B (SBA alone). The other 11 patients still displaying VUR after SBA had larger safe bladder volumes due to augmentation. The patients’ improving renal function benefited most from the enlarged bladder and partly from increased antireflux resistance of vesico-ureter anastomosis. Twelve (38.7 %) had recurrent febrile urinary tract infection after SBA, and one (3.2 %) suffered from vesico-ureter anastomosis contracture after ureteral reimplantation.

Conclusions

A preoperative intravesical VUR pressure of 20 cmH2O is not an effective cutoff point for whether ureteral reimplantation should be simultaneously performed during SBA. Augmentation appears to be more important than reimplantation for protecting kidney from damage due to febrile urinary tract infection after SBA. Simultaneous reimplantation may be not necessary during SBA in neurogenic bladder.

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. Biers SM, Venn SN, Greenwell TJ (2012) The past, present and future of augmentation cystoplasty. BJU Int 109:1280–1293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Simforoosh N, Tabibi A, Basiri A, Noorbala MH, Danesh AD, Ijadi A (2002) Is ureteral reimplantation necessary during augmentation cystoplasty in patients with neurogenic bladder and vesicoureteral reflux? J Urol 168:1439–1441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. López Pereira P, Martinez Urrutia MJ, Lobato Romera R, Jaureguizar E (2001) Should we treat vesicoureteral reflux in patients who simultaneously undergo bladder augmentation for neuropathic bladder? J Urol 165:2259–2261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brereton RJ, Narayanan R, Ratnatunga C (1987) Ureteric re-implantation in the neuropathic bladder. Br J Surg 74:1107–1110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang F, Liao L (2012) Sigmoidocolocystoplasty with ureteral reimplantation for treatment of neurogenic bladder. Urology 80:440–445

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Soygur T, Burgu B, Zümrütbas A, Suer E (2010) The need for ureteric re-implantation during augmentation cystoplasty: video-urodynamic evaluation. BJU Int 105:530–532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Helmy TE, Hafez AT (2013) Vesicouretral reflux with neuropathic bladder: studying the resolution rate after ileocystoplasty. Urology 82:425–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nagler EV, Williams G, Hodson EM, Craig JC (2011) Interventions for primary vesicoureteric reflux. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 15(6):CD001532

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L, Mattiasson A, Pesce F, Spangberg A, Sterling AM, Zinner NR, van Kerrebroeck P (2002) Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 21:261–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Flood HD, Ritchey ML, Bloom DA, Huang C, McGuire EJ (1994) Outcome of reflux in children with myelodysplasia managed by bladder pressure monitoring. J Urol 152:1574–1577

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koff SA (1992) Relationship between dysfunctional voiding and reflux. J Urol 148:1703–1705

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Juhasz Z, Somogyi R, Vajda P, Oberritter Z, Fathi K, Pinter AB (2008) Does the type of bladder augmentation influence the resolution of pre-existing vesicoureteral reflux? Urodynamic studies. Neurourol Urodyn 27:412–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Steyaert H, Gebran S, Moscovici J, Juskiewenski S (1996) Decisional criteria in the management of vesico-ureteral reflux in children with congenital neurogenic bladder. Prog Urol 6:76–80

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen RA, Rushton HG, Belman AB, Kass EJ, Majd M, Shaer C (1990) Renal scarring and vesicoureteral reflux in children with myelodysplasia. J Urol 144:541–544

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gladman MA, Scott SM, Lunniss PJ, Williams NS (2005) Systematic review of surgical options for idiopathic megarectum and megacolon. Ann Surg 241:562–574

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standard

This study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China

    Peng Zhang, Zhi-jin Wu, Chao-hua Zhang & Xiao-dong Zhang

  2. Department of Urology, Beijing Tumor Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Yong Yang & Ning Zhang

Authors
  1. Peng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yong Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhi-jin Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ning Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chao-hua Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiao-dong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peng Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, P., Yang, Y., Wu, Zj. et al. Should simultaneous ureteral reimplantation be performed during sigmoid bladder augmentation to reduce vesicoureteral reflux in neurogenic bladder cases?. Int Urol Nephrol 47, 759–764 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-015-0958-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-015-0958-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation