Landa-Juárez S, Montes de Oca-Muñoz LE, Castillo-Fernández AM, de la Cruz-Yañez H, García-Hernández C, Andraca-Dumit R

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 496-504
PDF size: 364.47 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Appendicovesicostomy is commonly employed to facilitate drainage of urine through the catheter. Due to the tendency to offer less invasive procedures for the treatment of patients with neurogenic bladder, laparoscopy has been used as an alternative to open surgery, with the immediate advantages of postoperative recovery, shorter postoperative ileus, better cosmetic results, lower postoperative pain and early reintegration into everyday life.
Purpose: Compare the results of laparoscopic procedure with open appendicovesicostomy.
Methods: We conducted an observational, analytical, longitudinal, ambispective cohort study, which included patients from 6-16 years of age diagnosed with neurogenic bladder, operated through laparoscopic and open appendicovesicostomy from January 2009 to June 2013. Information was obtained from clinical records. Six patients were operated laparoscopically and 14 by open approach.
Results: Surgical time was longer and statistically significant in the laparoscopic group with a median of 330 min (300-360 min) compared to open procedure of 255 min (180-360 min). Seven patients had complications in the open group and only one in the laparoscopic group. The difference in the dose of analgesics and time of use was statistically significant in favor of the laparoscopic group. The degree of urinary continence through the stoma was higher for laparoscopic (100%) compared to the open procedure (64%).
Conclusions: In neurogenic bladder with urodynamic bladder capacity and leak point pressure bladder within acceptable values, laparoscopic appendicovesicostomy was a better alternative.

REFERENCES

1. Farrugia MK, Malone PS. Educational article: The Mitrofanoff procedure. J Pediatr Urol 2010;6(4):330-337.

2. Clayton DB, Brock JW III. The Urologist´s Role in the Management of Spina Bifida: A Continuum of Care. Urology 2010;76(1):32-38.

3. Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Novick AC, Peters CA. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 10th ed. Saunders: Elseiver; 2012. p. 3493-3495.

4. English SF, Pisters LL, McGuire EJ. The use of the appendix as a continent catheterizable stoma. J Urol 1998;159(3):747-749.

5. Rapoport D, Secord S, MacNeily AE. The challenge of pediatric continent urinary diversion. J Pediatr Surg 2006;41(6):1113-1117.

6. Arango ME, Lince LF, Salazar C, Hoyos FC, Hurtado SN, Rendón JC. Resultados del uso de la técnica de Mitrofanoff en pacientes con disfunción neurógena de la vejiga: Análisis de la experiencia en el Hospital Universitario San Vicente de Paul. A Urol Esp 2009;33(1):69-75.

7. Harris CF, Cooper CS, Hutcheson JC, Snyder HM 3rd. Appendicovesicostomy: the Mitrofanoff procedure – a 15 year perspective. J Urol 2000;163(6):1922-1926.

8. Liard A, Séguier-Lipszyc E, Mathiot A, Mitrofanoff P. The Mitrofanoff procedure: 20 years later. J Urol 2001;165(6 Pt 2):2394-2398.

9. Gutiérrez VE, Rodríguez AA, Burek C, Duran V, López JC, Tofoni C, et al. Vesicostomia continente. Principio de Mitrofanoff. 10 años de experiencia. Rev de Cir Infantil 2002;12(4):211-215.

10. Thomas JC, Dietrich MS, Trusler L, DeMarco RT, Pope JC 4th, Brock JW 3rd, et al. Continent Catheterizable Channels and the Timing of Their Complications. J Urol 2006;176(4 Pt 2):1816-1820.

11. Welk BK, Afshar K, Rapoport D, MacNeily AE. Complications of the Catheterizable Channel Following Continent Urinary Diversion: Their Nature and Timing. J Urol 2008;180(Suppl 4):1856-1860.

12. Chung SY, Meldrum K, Docimo SG. Laparoscopic Assisted Reconstructive Surgery: A 7-Year Experience. J Urol 2004;171(1):372-375.

13. Taylor GD, Cadeddu JA. Applications of laparoscopic surgery in urology. Impact on patient care. Med Clin N Am 2004;88(2):519-538.

14. Jordan GH, Winslow BH. Laparoscopically Assisted Continent Catheterizable Cutaneous Appendicovesicostomy. J Endourol 2009;7(6):517-520.

15. Traxel EJ, Minevich EA, Noh PH. A Review: The Application of Minimally Invasive Surgery to Pediatric Urology: Lower Urinary Tract Reconstructive Procedures. Urology 2010;76(1):115-120.

16. Lorenzo AJ, Chait PG, Wallis MC, Raikhlin A, Farhat WA. Minimally Invasive Approach for Treatment of Urinary and Fecal Incontinence in Selected Patients with Spina Bifida. Urology 2007;70(3):568-571.

17. Hedican SP, Schulam PG, Docimo SG. Laparoscopic assisted reconstructive surgery. J Urol 1999;161(1):267-270.

18. Cadeddu JA, Docimo SG. Laparoscopic-assisted continent stoma procedures: our new standard. Urology 1999;54(5):909-912.

19. Pedraza R, Weiser A, Franco I. Laparoscopic appendicovesicostomy (Mitrofanoff procedure) in a child using the Da Vinci robotic system. J Urol 2004;171(4):1652-1653.

20. Hsu TH, Shortliffe LD. Laparoscopic Mitrofanoff apendicovesicostomy. Urology 2004;64(4):802-804.

21. Casale P, Feng WC, Grady RW, Joyner BD, Lee RS, Mitchell ME. Intracorporeal laparoscopic appendicovesicostomy: a case report of a novel approach. J Urol 2004;171(5):1899.

22. Nguyen HT, Passerotti CC, Penna FJ, Retik AB, Peters CA. Robotic assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff apendicovesicostomy: preliminary experience in a pediatric population. J Urol 2009;182(4):1528-1534.

23. Gundeti MS, Eng MK, Reynolds WS, Zagaja GP. Pediatric Robotic– assisted Laparoscopic Augmentation Ileocystoplasty and Mitrofanoff Appendicovesicostomy: Complete Intracorporeal – Initial Case Report. Urology 2008;72(5):1144-1147.