Vesicostomy button: how is it placed, in whom, and how is quality of life affected?

ABSTRACT Purpose The vesicostomy button has been shown to be a safe and effective bladder management strategy for short- or medium-term use when CIC cannot be instituted. This study reports our use with the vesicostomy button, highlighting the pros and cons of its use and complications. We then compared the quality or life in patients with vesicostomy button to those performing clean intermittent catheterization. Materials and Methods Retrospective chart review was conducted on children who had a vesicostomy button placed between 2011 and 2015. Placement was through existing vesicostomy, open or endoscopically. We then evaluated placement procedure and complications. A validated quality of life questionnaire was given to patients with vesicostomy button and to a matched cohort of patients performing clean intermittent catheterization. Results Thirteen children have had a vesicostomy button placed at our institution in the 4 year period, ages 7 months to 18 years. Indications for placement included neurogenic bladder (5), non-neurogenic neurogenic bladder (3), and valve bladders (5). Five out of 7 placed via existing vesicostomy had leakage around button. None of the endoscopically placed buttons had leakage. Complications were minor including UTI (3), wound infection (1), and button malfunction/leakage (3). QOL was equal and preserved in patients living with vesicostomy buttons when compared to CIC. Conclusion The vesicostomy button is an acceptable alternative to traditional vesicostomy and CIC. The morbidity of the button is quite low. Endoscopic insertion is the optimal technique. QOL is equivalent in patients with vesicostomy button and those who perform CIC.

Development and evaluation of a training model for paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy and catheterization

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy is a technique that should be learned by all surgical trainees and residents. This study aimed to develop a self-made training model for paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy and placement of the suprapubic catheter and then to evaluate its effectiveness in training fourth-year medical students. METHODS: Medical students were divided into an experimental group receiving comprehensive training involving literature, video, and model use and a control group receiving all the same training protocols as the experimental group except without hands-on practice using the model. Each student's performance was video-recorded, followed by subjective and objective evaluations by urology experts and statistical analysis. RESULTS: All students completed the surgical procedures successfully. The experimental group's performance scores were significantly higher than those of the control group (median final performance scores of 91.0 vs. 86.8, respectively). Excellent scores were achieved by more students in the experimental group than in the control group (55% vs. 20%), and fewer poor scores were observed in the experimental group than in the control group (5% vs. 30%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on its cost-effectiveness, reusability, and training effectiveness, this paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy training model is able to achieve goals in teaching practice quickly and easily. Use of the model should be encouraged for training senior medical students and resident physicians who may be expected to perform emergent suprapubic catheter insertion at some time.