Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
4161857 | Journal of Pediatric Urology | 2016 | 6 Pages |
Abstract
Approximately half of our patients did not require a formal channel revision after endoscopic management. We did not identify any specific risk factors for subsequent formal revision of a CCC. We recommend performing at least one endoscopic evaluation for those with difficulty catheterizing prior to proceeding with formal open revision.Table. Patient demographics.Revised (n = 35)Not revised (n = 27)Patient age (years) at CCC creation, median (IQR)7.3 (5.4-9.8)7.2 (5.8-10.4)p = 0.93Genderp = 0.62 Female, n (%)16 (45.7)14 (51.9) Male, n (%)19 (54.2)13 (48.1)Diagnosisp = 0.36 Spina bifida, n (%)29 (82.8)19 (70.4) Other, n (%)6 (17.1)8 (29.6)Bladder neckp = 0.86 Closure, n (%)3 (8.6)2 (7.4) Sling or reconstruction, n (%)16 (45.7)10 (37.0) Native, n (%)16 (45.7)15 (55.6)Stomal locationp = 0.10 Umbilical, n (%)14 (40.0)5 (18.5) Non-umbilical, n (%)21 (60.0)22 (81.5)Channel typep = 0.11 Appendicovesicostomy, n (%)4 (11.4)8 (29.6) Monti ileovesicostomy, n (%)31 (88.6)19 (70.4)
Related Topics
Health Sciences
Medicine and Dentistry
Perinatology, Pediatrics and Child Health
Authors
Jessica T. Casey, Mimi Zhang, Katherine H. Chan, Konrad M. Szymanski, Benjamin Judge, Benjamin Whittam, Martin Kaefer, Rosalia Misseri, Richard C. Rink, Mark P. Cain,