title: Clinical indications for augmentation in children with neurogenic urinary incontinence following bladder outlet procedures: Results of a 14-year observational study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  We report continence, upper tract changes, and augmentation indications and rates in consecutive patients undergoing bladder outlet surgery without augmentation for neurogenic urinary incontinence.
  
  
  METHODS
  From 2000 to 2007, 37 patients underwent bladder neck sling (BNS), and from 2007 to 2013, 45 patients had Leadbetter/Mitchell bladder neck revision plus sling (LMS), all without augmentation. Mitrofanoff channels were created in all cases. Twenty children with persistent outlet insufficiency underwent bladder neck closure (BNC). All patients had pre- and postoperative urodynamic testing (UD).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean follow-up was 60 months after BNS, 38 months after LMS, and 29 months after BNC. Continence (dry, no pads) was achieved significantly more often with LMS versus BNS (66% vs. 37%). There were no significant differences between these patients in preoperative UD % capacity, end filling pressure (EFP), or compliance. Those that became dry had a greater % capacity on postoperative UD, but postoperative EFP was similar between dry and wet LMS and BNS patients. BNC resulted in dryness in 65% of patients, with most incontinence occurring from the Mitrofanoff stoma associated with filling pressures > 40 cm. A total of 10 (12%) children had augmentation, seven after BNC. Clinical indications were end filling pressures > 40 cm plus hydronephrosis ≥ grade 3, and/or persistent incontinence. Need for augmentation was not predicted by preoperative urodynamic parameters. Postoperative UD in those who were augmented showed significantly less % capacity and compliance, and significantly greater EFP, than those not augmented.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Dryness was achieved in only 33% of BNS versus 66% of LMS and BNC patients. Twelve percent of consecutive children undergoing bladder outlet surgery for neurogenic incontinence developed clinical parameters leading to augmentation. These occurred most often after BNC.
authors.affiliation: Parc Urology, Frisco, TX, USA. Electronic address: snodgrass@parcurology.com.
authors.forename: Warren
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Snodgrass
authors.affiliation: Division of Pediatric Urology, Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, USA.
authors.forename: Candace
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Granberg
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005544:Forecasting; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D008297:Male; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology; D001743:Urinary Bladder / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery; D001748:Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D001750:Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology* / Q000503:physiopathology; D014554:Urination / Q000502:physiology*; D013520:Urologic Surgical Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects*
keywords: Augmentation; Bladder sling; Mitrofanoff; Neurogenic bladder; Urinary incontinence; Urodynamics