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.