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.

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

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.

Association of Obesity, BMI, and Hispanic Ethnicity on Ambulatory Status in Children with Spinal Dysraphism followed near the California-Mexico Border.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the relationship between body mass index (BMI), overweight status (OW), or obesity (OB) and ambulatory status in a predominantly Hispanic population of children with spinal dysraphism (SD). METHODS: Retrospective data were extracted from records of 272 children and youth aged 0-24 years with a diagnosis of SD. Body mass index (BMI) and OW / OB rates were calculated for children 0-3 years, 4-11 years, and adolescents older than 11. RESULTS: Ethnicity was predominantly Hispanic (65.4%). No difference in mean BMI or OW / OB rate was found between ambulation groups (p = .20; p = .72). Mean BMI and OW / OB rate increased with increasing age in all groups (p < .001; p = .02). Forty-four percent of patients were OW / OB, which was greater among Hispanics (48.2%) compared with non-Hispanics [(35.2%), p = .03]. Female gender was a risk factor for increased BMI among Hispanics (p = .00). CONCLUSION: Despite no difference in ambulatory status, increasing BMI and OW / OB are associated with Hispanic ethnicity and increasing age.

Laparoendoscopic single site surgery in pediatric urology: does it require specialized tools?

PURPOSE: To describe our experience utilizing Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) surgery in pediatric urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed on LESS urologic procedures from November 2009 through March 2013. A total of 44 patients underwent 54 procedures including: nephrectomy (23), orchiopexy (14), varicocelectomy (9), orchiectomy (2), urachal cyst excision (3), and antegrade continence enema (3) (ACE). RESULTS: Median patient age was 6.9 years old. Estimated blood loss (EBL), ranged from less than 5cc to 47cc for a bilateral nephrectomy. Operative time varied from 56 mins for varicocelectomy to a median of 360 minutes for a bilateral nephroureterectomy. Incision length ranged between 2 and 2.5cm. In our initial experience we used a commercial port. However, as we progressed, we were able to perform the majority of our procedures via adjacent fascial punctures for instrumentation at the single incision site. One patient did require conversion to an open procedure as a result of bleeding. Three complications were noted (6.8%), with two Clavien Grade 3b complications. Two patients required additional procedures at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LESS applies to many pediatric urologic procedures, ideally for ablative procedures or simple reconstructive efforts. The use of adjacent fascial puncture sites for instrumentation can obviate the need for a commercial port or multiple trocars.

Laparoendoscopic single site surgery in pediatric urology: does it require specialized tools?

ABSTRACT Purpose: To describe our experience utilizing Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) surgery in pediatric urology. Materials and Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed on LESS urologic procedures from November 2009 through March 2013. A total of 44 patients underwent 54 procedures including: nephrectomy (23), orchiopexy (14), varicocelectomy (9), orchiectomy (2), urachal cyst excision (3), and antegrade continence enema (3) (ACE). Results: Median patient age was 6.9 years old. Estimated blood loss (EBL), ranged from less than 5cc to 47cc for a bilateral nephrectomy. Operative time varied from 56 mins for varicocelectomy to a median of 360 minutes for a bilateral nephroureterectomy. Incision length ranged between 2 and 2.5cm. In our initial experience we used a commercial port. However, as we progressed, we were able to perform the majority of our procedures via adjacent fascial punctures for instrumentation at the single incision site. One patient did require conversion to an open procedure as a result of bleeding. Three complications were noted (6.8%), with two Clavien Grade 3b complications. Two patients required additional procedures at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions: The use of LESS applies to many pediatric urologic procedures, ideally for ablative procedures or simple reconstructive efforts. The use of adjacent fascial puncture sites for instrumentation can obviate the need for a commercial port or multiple trocars.