Clean Intermittent Catheterisation via a Mitrofanoff Is Superior to Long Term Suprapubic Catheters for Bladder Drainage
Some children require long-term drainage of the bladder but do not tolerate clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC) urethrally. We aimed to compare long term suprapubic catheter (SPC) drainage vs Mitrofanoff conduit (allowing CIC) by comparing the survival of the drainage methods and rates of urina...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of pediatric surgery 2024-11, p.162050, Article 162050 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 162050 |
| container_title | Journal of pediatric surgery |
| container_volume | |
| creator | Van der Merwe, Elmarie Loveday, Rosy Jackson, Laura McCarthy, Liam |
| description | Some children require long-term drainage of the bladder but do not tolerate clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC) urethrally. We aimed to compare long term suprapubic catheter (SPC) drainage vs Mitrofanoff conduit (allowing CIC) by comparing the survival of the drainage methods and rates of urinary tract infection (UTI).
Retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience (2007–2023). Data collection included diagnosis, age at procedures, date of surgery, date of most recent follow-up and date and reason for unplanned surgery. For SPCs, initial insertion of SPC and then conversion to a Foley catheter under GA was taken as normal (event free survival) and only further operations were counted as complication events. For Mitrofanoffs, any subsequent operation was counted as a complication.
Data were given as a number (%) or median (interquartile range) as appropriate. Data analysed by Fisher exact and Mann–Whitney U-test. Kaplan Meier (KM) survival of drainage routes was compared, P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.162050 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3131851822</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S002234682401011X</els_id><sourcerecordid>3131851822</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1600-7d2851ce26f06637c56386793dcc61b5c2dc805389a01c94d9f744051c8f5be23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE9vEzEQxS0EoqHwFSofuWwY22vv7g1I-RMpiAPlbDn2ODjarBfbW8S3x1HaXjmNZvR772keITcM1gyYendcH2d0eUmHNQferpniIOEZWTEpWCNBdM_JCoDzRrSqvyKvcj4C1DOwl-RKDLLjvIcV-bMZ0Ux0OxVMp1AKToVuTPmFdQ_ZlBAneh8MNfRbKCl6M0Xv6TbTH8tciZhoiXQXpwO9qwbnazLzsg_2ySVTX6mPo3EOE71NJkzmgK_JC2_GjG8e5jX5-fnT3eZrs_v-Zbv5sGssUwBN53gvmUWuPCglOiuV6FU3CGetYntpubM9SNEPBpgdWjf4rm2hSnov98jFNXl78Z1T_L1gLvoUssVxNBPGJWvBBKsJPT-j6oLaFHNO6PWcwsmkv5qBPpeuj_qxdH0uXV9Kr8Kbh4xlf0L3JHtsuQLvLwDWT-8DJp1twMmiCwlt0S6G_2X8Awn8lq4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3131851822</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clean Intermittent Catheterisation via a Mitrofanoff Is Superior to Long Term Suprapubic Catheters for Bladder Drainage</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Van der Merwe, Elmarie ; Loveday, Rosy ; Jackson, Laura ; McCarthy, Liam</creator><creatorcontrib>Van der Merwe, Elmarie ; Loveday, Rosy ; Jackson, Laura ; McCarthy, Liam</creatorcontrib><description>Some children require long-term drainage of the bladder but do not tolerate clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC) urethrally. We aimed to compare long term suprapubic catheter (SPC) drainage vs Mitrofanoff conduit (allowing CIC) by comparing the survival of the drainage methods and rates of urinary tract infection (UTI).
Retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience (2007–2023). Data collection included diagnosis, age at procedures, date of surgery, date of most recent follow-up and date and reason for unplanned surgery. For SPCs, initial insertion of SPC and then conversion to a Foley catheter under GA was taken as normal (event free survival) and only further operations were counted as complication events. For Mitrofanoffs, any subsequent operation was counted as a complication.
Data were given as a number (%) or median (interquartile range) as appropriate. Data analysed by Fisher exact and Mann–Whitney U-test. Kaplan Meier (KM) survival of drainage routes was compared, P < 0.05 taken as significant.
There were 45 patients (n = 86 SPC episodes) compared to 108 patients (n = 110 Mitrofanoff procedures). Data were available in 73 SPC episodes and 109 Mitrofanoff episodes, including 3 redo procedures (one from another centre). There was no difference in gender (SPC group, 67 % male vs. Mitrofanoff group, 77 %; N.S.). There was no difference in age at procedure [7.5 (2.9–11.5) years vs 8.3 (5.9–11.4) years respectively; N.S.)
KM comparison showed that Mitrofanoff have a better event-free survival than SPC (91 % vs 52 % at 1 year; 80 % vs. 13 % at 5 years; P < 0.0001). Paired data showed a significant (86 %) reduction in rate of UTI with conversion from SPC to Mitrofanoff drainage in 15 patients; SPC: 0.13 (0–0.46) UTIs/month vs subsequent Mitrofanoff: 0.02 (0–0.08) UTI/month, P = 0.04).
SPCs had a much higher rate of unplanned surgery than Mitrofanoffs, creating a considerable unplanned burden of care for families and clinical staff. For long-term bladder drainage CIC via a Mitrofanoff conduit should be considered in preference to SPC where urethral CIC is not possible.
•Some children need surgical drainage of the bladder as they do not tolerate urethral CIC•Suprapubic catheters have a higher complication rate, and lower survival than Mitrofanoff conduits•Suprapubic catheters are associated with a far higher rate of UTIs/month than Mitrofanoff conduits.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3468</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1531-5037</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-5037</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.162050</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39572280</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Bladder ; Mitrofanoff ; Suprapubic catheter</subject><ispartof>Journal of pediatric surgery, 2024-11, p.162050, Article 162050</ispartof><rights>2024</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1600-7d2851ce26f06637c56386793dcc61b5c2dc805389a01c94d9f744051c8f5be23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.162050$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,3539,27907,27908,45978</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39572280$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Van der Merwe, Elmarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loveday, Rosy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCarthy, Liam</creatorcontrib><title>Clean Intermittent Catheterisation via a Mitrofanoff Is Superior to Long Term Suprapubic Catheters for Bladder Drainage</title><title>Journal of pediatric surgery</title><addtitle>J Pediatr Surg</addtitle><description>Some children require long-term drainage of the bladder but do not tolerate clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC) urethrally. We aimed to compare long term suprapubic catheter (SPC) drainage vs Mitrofanoff conduit (allowing CIC) by comparing the survival of the drainage methods and rates of urinary tract infection (UTI).
Retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience (2007–2023). Data collection included diagnosis, age at procedures, date of surgery, date of most recent follow-up and date and reason for unplanned surgery. For SPCs, initial insertion of SPC and then conversion to a Foley catheter under GA was taken as normal (event free survival) and only further operations were counted as complication events. For Mitrofanoffs, any subsequent operation was counted as a complication.
Data were given as a number (%) or median (interquartile range) as appropriate. Data analysed by Fisher exact and Mann–Whitney U-test. Kaplan Meier (KM) survival of drainage routes was compared, P < 0.05 taken as significant.
There were 45 patients (n = 86 SPC episodes) compared to 108 patients (n = 110 Mitrofanoff procedures). Data were available in 73 SPC episodes and 109 Mitrofanoff episodes, including 3 redo procedures (one from another centre). There was no difference in gender (SPC group, 67 % male vs. Mitrofanoff group, 77 %; N.S.). There was no difference in age at procedure [7.5 (2.9–11.5) years vs 8.3 (5.9–11.4) years respectively; N.S.)
KM comparison showed that Mitrofanoff have a better event-free survival than SPC (91 % vs 52 % at 1 year; 80 % vs. 13 % at 5 years; P < 0.0001). Paired data showed a significant (86 %) reduction in rate of UTI with conversion from SPC to Mitrofanoff drainage in 15 patients; SPC: 0.13 (0–0.46) UTIs/month vs subsequent Mitrofanoff: 0.02 (0–0.08) UTI/month, P = 0.04).
SPCs had a much higher rate of unplanned surgery than Mitrofanoffs, creating a considerable unplanned burden of care for families and clinical staff. For long-term bladder drainage CIC via a Mitrofanoff conduit should be considered in preference to SPC where urethral CIC is not possible.
•Some children need surgical drainage of the bladder as they do not tolerate urethral CIC•Suprapubic catheters have a higher complication rate, and lower survival than Mitrofanoff conduits•Suprapubic catheters are associated with a far higher rate of UTIs/month than Mitrofanoff conduits.</description><subject>Bladder</subject><subject>Mitrofanoff</subject><subject>Suprapubic catheter</subject><issn>0022-3468</issn><issn>1531-5037</issn><issn>1531-5037</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkE9vEzEQxS0EoqHwFSofuWwY22vv7g1I-RMpiAPlbDn2ODjarBfbW8S3x1HaXjmNZvR772keITcM1gyYendcH2d0eUmHNQferpniIOEZWTEpWCNBdM_JCoDzRrSqvyKvcj4C1DOwl-RKDLLjvIcV-bMZ0Ux0OxVMp1AKToVuTPmFdQ_ZlBAneh8MNfRbKCl6M0Xv6TbTH8tciZhoiXQXpwO9qwbnazLzsg_2ySVTX6mPo3EOE71NJkzmgK_JC2_GjG8e5jX5-fnT3eZrs_v-Zbv5sGssUwBN53gvmUWuPCglOiuV6FU3CGetYntpubM9SNEPBpgdWjf4rm2hSnov98jFNXl78Z1T_L1gLvoUssVxNBPGJWvBBKsJPT-j6oLaFHNO6PWcwsmkv5qBPpeuj_qxdH0uXV9Kr8Kbh4xlf0L3JHtsuQLvLwDWT-8DJp1twMmiCwlt0S6G_2X8Awn8lq4</recordid><startdate>20241104</startdate><enddate>20241104</enddate><creator>Van der Merwe, Elmarie</creator><creator>Loveday, Rosy</creator><creator>Jackson, Laura</creator><creator>McCarthy, Liam</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20241104</creationdate><title>Clean Intermittent Catheterisation via a Mitrofanoff Is Superior to Long Term Suprapubic Catheters for Bladder Drainage</title><author>Van der Merwe, Elmarie ; Loveday, Rosy ; Jackson, Laura ; McCarthy, Liam</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1600-7d2851ce26f06637c56386793dcc61b5c2dc805389a01c94d9f744051c8f5be23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Bladder</topic><topic>Mitrofanoff</topic><topic>Suprapubic catheter</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Van der Merwe, Elmarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loveday, Rosy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCarthy, Liam</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of pediatric surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Van der Merwe, Elmarie</au><au>Loveday, Rosy</au><au>Jackson, Laura</au><au>McCarthy, Liam</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clean Intermittent Catheterisation via a Mitrofanoff Is Superior to Long Term Suprapubic Catheters for Bladder Drainage</atitle><jtitle>Journal of pediatric surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Pediatr Surg</addtitle><date>2024-11-04</date><risdate>2024</risdate><spage>162050</spage><pages>162050-</pages><artnum>162050</artnum><issn>0022-3468</issn><issn>1531-5037</issn><eissn>1531-5037</eissn><abstract>Some children require long-term drainage of the bladder but do not tolerate clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC) urethrally. We aimed to compare long term suprapubic catheter (SPC) drainage vs Mitrofanoff conduit (allowing CIC) by comparing the survival of the drainage methods and rates of urinary tract infection (UTI).
Retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience (2007–2023). Data collection included diagnosis, age at procedures, date of surgery, date of most recent follow-up and date and reason for unplanned surgery. For SPCs, initial insertion of SPC and then conversion to a Foley catheter under GA was taken as normal (event free survival) and only further operations were counted as complication events. For Mitrofanoffs, any subsequent operation was counted as a complication.
Data were given as a number (%) or median (interquartile range) as appropriate. Data analysed by Fisher exact and Mann–Whitney U-test. Kaplan Meier (KM) survival of drainage routes was compared, P < 0.05 taken as significant.
There were 45 patients (n = 86 SPC episodes) compared to 108 patients (n = 110 Mitrofanoff procedures). Data were available in 73 SPC episodes and 109 Mitrofanoff episodes, including 3 redo procedures (one from another centre). There was no difference in gender (SPC group, 67 % male vs. Mitrofanoff group, 77 %; N.S.). There was no difference in age at procedure [7.5 (2.9–11.5) years vs 8.3 (5.9–11.4) years respectively; N.S.)
KM comparison showed that Mitrofanoff have a better event-free survival than SPC (91 % vs 52 % at 1 year; 80 % vs. 13 % at 5 years; P < 0.0001). Paired data showed a significant (86 %) reduction in rate of UTI with conversion from SPC to Mitrofanoff drainage in 15 patients; SPC: 0.13 (0–0.46) UTIs/month vs subsequent Mitrofanoff: 0.02 (0–0.08) UTI/month, P = 0.04).
SPCs had a much higher rate of unplanned surgery than Mitrofanoffs, creating a considerable unplanned burden of care for families and clinical staff. For long-term bladder drainage CIC via a Mitrofanoff conduit should be considered in preference to SPC where urethral CIC is not possible.
•Some children need surgical drainage of the bladder as they do not tolerate urethral CIC•Suprapubic catheters have a higher complication rate, and lower survival than Mitrofanoff conduits•Suprapubic catheters are associated with a far higher rate of UTIs/month than Mitrofanoff conduits.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>39572280</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.162050</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-3468 |
| ispartof | Journal of pediatric surgery, 2024-11, p.162050, Article 162050 |
| issn | 0022-3468 1531-5037 1531-5037 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3131851822 |
| source | ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
| subjects | Bladder Mitrofanoff Suprapubic catheter |
| title | Clean Intermittent Catheterisation via a Mitrofanoff Is Superior to Long Term Suprapubic Catheters for Bladder Drainage |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T10%3A01%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clean%20Intermittent%20Catheterisation%20via%20a%20Mitrofanoff%20Is%20Superior%20to%20Long%20Term%20Suprapubic%20Catheters%20for%20Bladder%20Drainage&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20pediatric%20surgery&rft.au=Van%20der%20Merwe,%20Elmarie&rft.date=2024-11-04&rft.spage=162050&rft.pages=162050-&rft.artnum=162050&rft.issn=0022-3468&rft.eissn=1531-5037&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.162050&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3131851822%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3131851822&rft_id=info:pmid/39572280&rft_els_id=S002234682401011X&rfr_iscdi=true |