Cargando…

Use of the Silastic Sheath in Bladder Neck Reconstruction

OBJECTIVE: The study compared two populations of patients undergoing bladder neck reconstruction using the silastic sheath in two major pediatric centers. The success with this technique was markedly different in the two centers. The purpose of the study was to determine factors that might explain t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Diamond, D.A., Quimby, G.F., Rink, R.C., Ransley, P.G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: TheScientificWorldJOURNAL 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15349535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2004.54
_version_ 1783323906437808128
author Diamond, D.A.
Quimby, G.F.
Rink, R.C.
Ransley, P.G.
author_facet Diamond, D.A.
Quimby, G.F.
Rink, R.C.
Ransley, P.G.
author_sort Diamond, D.A.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The study compared two populations of patients undergoing bladder neck reconstruction using the silastic sheath in two major pediatric centers. The success with this technique was markedly different in the two centers. The purpose of the study was to determine factors that might explain the divergent results.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients treated in Indianapolis were compared with 94 patients treated in London with the silastic sheath technique of bladder neck reconstruction. Eighty-seven percent of the Indianapolis patients had myelomeningocele whereas 86% of the London group had exstrophy/epispadias. Median age of the Indianapolis patients was 11 years whereas it was 8.4 years in London. Seventy-three percent of patients in Indianapolis were female and 79% in London were male. Patients were followed for a minimum of eight years in Indianapolis and a mean of seven years in London. Similar surgical technique was employed in the two centers but, over time, the London approach included use of a non-reinforced silastic wrapped loosely around the bladder neck with the interposition of omentum. RESULTS: Both groups achieved continence rates exceeding 90%. Of the Indianapolis patients, two-thirds experienced erosion of the silastic at a mean of 48 months. With modifications in the London technique, the erosion rate of silastic was lowered from 100% to 7%. CONCLUSION: Direct, snug wrap of silastic without omentum around the Young-Dees tube as well as simultaneous bladder augmentation placed patients at increased risk for erosion. The silastic sheath technique may be less applicable to myelomeningocele patients. It seems most applicable to older male patients with exstrophy or epispadias undergoing Young-Dees bladder neck reconstruction who have the ability to void.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5956496
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher TheScientificWorldJOURNAL
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59564962018-06-03 Use of the Silastic Sheath in Bladder Neck Reconstruction Diamond, D.A. Quimby, G.F. Rink, R.C. Ransley, P.G. ScientificWorldJournal Research Article OBJECTIVE: The study compared two populations of patients undergoing bladder neck reconstruction using the silastic sheath in two major pediatric centers. The success with this technique was markedly different in the two centers. The purpose of the study was to determine factors that might explain the divergent results.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients treated in Indianapolis were compared with 94 patients treated in London with the silastic sheath technique of bladder neck reconstruction. Eighty-seven percent of the Indianapolis patients had myelomeningocele whereas 86% of the London group had exstrophy/epispadias. Median age of the Indianapolis patients was 11 years whereas it was 8.4 years in London. Seventy-three percent of patients in Indianapolis were female and 79% in London were male. Patients were followed for a minimum of eight years in Indianapolis and a mean of seven years in London. Similar surgical technique was employed in the two centers but, over time, the London approach included use of a non-reinforced silastic wrapped loosely around the bladder neck with the interposition of omentum. RESULTS: Both groups achieved continence rates exceeding 90%. Of the Indianapolis patients, two-thirds experienced erosion of the silastic at a mean of 48 months. With modifications in the London technique, the erosion rate of silastic was lowered from 100% to 7%. CONCLUSION: Direct, snug wrap of silastic without omentum around the Young-Dees tube as well as simultaneous bladder augmentation placed patients at increased risk for erosion. The silastic sheath technique may be less applicable to myelomeningocele patients. It seems most applicable to older male patients with exstrophy or epispadias undergoing Young-Dees bladder neck reconstruction who have the ability to void. TheScientificWorldJOURNAL 2004-06-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5956496/ /pubmed/15349535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2004.54 Text en Copyright © 2004 D. A. Diamond et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Diamond, D.A.
Quimby, G.F.
Rink, R.C.
Ransley, P.G.
Use of the Silastic Sheath in Bladder Neck Reconstruction
title Use of the Silastic Sheath in Bladder Neck Reconstruction
title_full Use of the Silastic Sheath in Bladder Neck Reconstruction
title_fullStr Use of the Silastic Sheath in Bladder Neck Reconstruction
title_full_unstemmed Use of the Silastic Sheath in Bladder Neck Reconstruction
title_short Use of the Silastic Sheath in Bladder Neck Reconstruction
title_sort use of the silastic sheath in bladder neck reconstruction
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5956496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15349535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2004.54
work_keys_str_mv AT diamondda useofthesilasticsheathinbladderneckreconstruction
AT quimbygf useofthesilasticsheathinbladderneckreconstruction
AT rinkrc useofthesilasticsheathinbladderneckreconstruction
AT ransleypg useofthesilasticsheathinbladderneckreconstruction