Premium
Further experience with the periurethral expander:
Author(s) -
LIMA S.V.C.,
ARAÚJO L.A.P.,
VILAR F.O.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
british journal of urology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 0007-1331
DOI - 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1997.00255.x
Subject(s) - medicine , bladder exstrophy , clean intermittent catheterization , surgery , urinary incontinence , epispadias , bladder augmentation , cuff , neck of urinary bladder , urinary bladder
Objective To determine the long‐term effects of the periurethral expander, a new device for the treatment of urinary incontinence in children. Patients and methods Twenty‐five patients (mean age 11.2 years, range 3–22) had a periurethral expander implanted around the bladder neck within the last 41 months. Twelve of these patients had neurogenic bladders as a result of myelomeningocele, 12 had undergone unsuccessful exstrophy reconstructions and one had megalourethra. Bladder augmentations were carried out in 23 of the patients. The mean follow‐up was 23 months. Results Ten patients had the device removed due to erosion and/or infection; patients with exstrophy were more susceptible to complications. Patients with neurogenic bladders use clean intermittent catheterization and the remainder void spontaneously. The mean pressure in the cuff was 58.7 cmH 2 O. Conclusion The periurethral expander seems to be a valid option in the treatment of selected cases of urinary incontinence in children and young adults. There were more complications in patients with exstrophy/epispadias and such patients must be considered unsuitable for this treatment.