Augmentation Cystoplasty 

  • Author: Pravin K Rao, MD; Chief Editor: Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS   more...
 
Updated: Feb 17, 2012
 

Background

Bladder augmentation, also called augmentation cystoplasty, is a surgical procedure used in adults and children who lack adequate bladder capacity or detrusor compliance.[1, 2, 3] For many patients, augmentation cystoplasty can provide a safe functional reservoir that allows for urinary continence and prevention of upper tract deterioration.

Both neuropathic and non-neuropathic causes for severe bladder dysfunction exist in pediatric and adult populations. Neuropathic causes include the following:

Nonneuropathic causes include the following:

Decreased bladder capacity or abnormal compliance may manifest as debilitating urgency, frequency, incontinence, recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs), pyelonephritis, or progressive renal insufficiency.

Various studies used to evaluate such symptoms may reveal severe dysfunction. Urodynamic studies demonstrate a low-volume, poorly compliant reservoir, which places the kidneys at risk from high-pressure urinary storage. Simultaneous fluoroscopic videourodynamic evaluation may reveal vesicoureteral reflux. Renal ultrasonography or other imaging modalities may show renal scarring or impaired renal growth due to high-pressure urinary storage.

Next

Indications

Any patient with marked reduction in bladder capacity or compliance may be a candidate for augmentation cystoplasty. Conservative management for these patients usually consists of intermittent self-catheterization[4] and anticholinergic medications. In general, augmentation cystoplasty is considered when bothersome symptoms impair a patient’s lifestyle despite medical treatment or when high-pressure urinary storage places the upper urinary tracts at risk.

Neurogenic bladder in the pediatric population is often associated with congenital anomalies, including the following:

Patients with these conditions most commonly undergo augmentation cystoplasty when, despite behavioral and medical management, they experience continued incontinence, debilitating urgency, enuresis, complicated UTIs, vesicoureteral reflux, or impaired renal growth.

Some adult patients who underwent urinary diversion for an embryologic urinary defect as a child seek a healthier cosmetic and functional state. In other cases, adults have an acquired condition that is causing bladder dysfunction. Adults may present with symptoms very similar to those of children with congenital abnormalities. Again, surgery is indicated for adults with refractory symptoms and those with risk or progression of upper tract deterioration.

Previous
Next

Contraindications

Patients who are unable or unwilling to perform life-long intermittent catheterization should not undergo augmentation cystoplasty, because of the high likelihood that catheterization will ultimately be required.

In addition, patients with inflammatory bowel disease (especially Crohn disease), a short or irradiated bowel, bladder tumors, severe radiation cystitis, or severe renal insufficiency should not undergo augmentation cystoplasty.

Poor surgical candidates and patients with a short life expectancy should consider alternatives to augmentation cystoplasty, such as continued medical management or creation of a less complex, temporizing form of urinary drainage.

Previous
Next

Technical Considerations

The anatomy of the bladder forms an extraperitoneal muscular urine reservoir that lies behind the pubic symphysis in the pelvis. A normal bladder functions through a complex coordination of musculoskeletal, neurologic, and psychological functions that allow filling and emptying of the bladder contents. The prime effector of continence is the synergic relaxation of detrusor muscles and contraction of the bladder neck and pelvic floor muscles.

The normal adult bladder accommodates 300-600 mL of urine; a central nervous system (CNS) response is usually triggered when the volume reaches 400 mL. However, urination can be prevented by cortical suppression of the peripheral nervous system or by voluntary contraction of the external urethral sphincter.

Before being considered for augmentation cystoplasty, patients should have timed voids as often as necessary to maintain low bladder volume and pressure.

Anticholinergic medications (eg, oxybutynin, hyoscyamine, or tolterodine) may be given to decrease detrusor instability and symptoms of urgency. Medical management also allows increased bladder volume to protect renal function and to decrease the chance of pyelonephritis. The increase in bladder capacity with medical treatment has been modest (generally < 50 mL), but some groups have found that higher doses may increase the effect, as one study demonstrated in young children with neurogenic bladders.[7]

Lack of coordinated detrusor contraction or increased bladder outlet obstruction (eg, external sphincter dyssynergia) can be overcome with intermittent self-catheterization at 4- to 6-hour intervals. This usually reduces bladder pressure and improves continence. Adult patients should have good manual dexterity, proven by performing self-catheterization in front of the physician. In pediatric patients, the parents must be committed to catheterizing the child at least every 4-6 hours. Parents must be taught catheterization before surgery.

Intermittent catheterization and anticholinergic management are usually used in combination to accomplish symptom-management goals, to create continence, to eliminate vesicoureteral reflux, to prevent UTIs, and to ensure low bladder storage pressure. If these measures fail, augmentation cystoplasty should be considered.

Previous
Next

Outcomes

In properly selected patients, augmentation cystoplasty is an excellent procedure that provides a safe and effective way of improving urinary storage. Bladder emptying is almost universally impaired, and the patient must be prepared to perform lifelong intermittent catheterization. The patient and physician must recognize the need for surveillance to identify potential problems. Stones, metabolic and nutritional abnormalities, renal insufficiency, and malignancy are best treated through early recognition and prompt therapy.[8, 9]

Herschorn et al, using a survey to address complications and patient satisfaction in an augmentation cystoplasty population, found that at a mean of 6 years after surgery, 41% of the patients had 1 or more complications, with 36% of all patients requiring intervention.[10] Most took medications (eg, anticholinergics, antidiarrheals, or antibiotics). Of 59 patients, 56 required clean intermittent catheterization at a mean interval of 4.6 hours; 18% had postoperative bowel dysfunction, and 7% had preoperative dysfunction.

Alternative approaches

McGuire et al compared patients treated with augmentation cystoplasty to patients treated with autoaugmentation and determined that whereas autoaugmentation causes less morbidity, commonly reduces symptoms, and routinely improves bladder compliance, the gains in bladder capacity were much less than those seen with augmentation cystoplasty.[11]

This study stratified patients by etiology of bladder dysfunction and compared urodynamic and symptomatic improvement.[11] Patients with myelomeningocele did not fare as well with autoaugmentation because of the smaller increases in bladder capacity, and augmentation cystoplasty was more beneficial in these patients. Reportedly, autoaugmentation was unsuccessful in 27% of the patients who required augmentation cystoplasty.

Hedican et al used laparoscopy to mobilize the intestine in complex pediatric procedures, including augmentation cystoplasty.[12] They found laparoscopy useful in mobilizing the right colon and in isolating the appendix for a continent catheterizable stoma. A smaller lower-midline or Pfannenstiel incision can be used for surgery on the bladder or for re-establishment of bowel continuity.

Laparoscopic autoaugmentation has also been shown to be technically feasible. Braren and Bishop performed laparoscopic autoaugmentation in 7 pediatric female patients aged 3 months to 15 years; bladder capacity increased 55-95%, all 7 patients showed symptomatic improvement, and 6 of the 7 were completely dry.[13]

With the advent of robotic instruments with increased range of motion and the facilitation of intracorporeal suturing, many reconstructive procedures including bladder augmentation have become more amenable to fully laparoscopic procedures.[14] These procedures may decrease morbidity, reduce intra-abdominal adhesions, and improve body self-image.

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Pravin K Rao, MD  Staff Physician, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Alan J Iverson, MD  Staff Physician, Department of Urology, David Grant Medical Center

Alan J Iverson, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Urological Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Edmund S Sabanegh Jr, MD  Chairman, Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Edmund S Sabanegh Jr, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Medical Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American Society of Andrology, American Urological Association, Society for the Study of Male Reproduction, Society of Reproductive Surgeons, and Southwest Oncology Group

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS  Professor of Urology, Director, Center for Laparoscopy and Endourology, Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Bradley Fields Schwartz, DO, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Urological Association, Association of Military Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons, Endourological Society, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, and Society of University Urologists

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

R Duane Cespedes, MD Residency Program Director, Director of Female Urology and Urodynamics, Department of Urology, Wilford Hall Medical Center; Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

R Duane Cespedes, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha and American Urological Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Michael Grasso III, MD Director of Endourology, Lenox Hill Hospital; Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Urology, New York Medical College

Michael Grasso III, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Medical Association, American Urological Association, Endourological Society, Medical Society of the State of New York, National Kidney Foundation, Société Internationale d'Urologie (International Society of Urology), and Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

Disclosure: Karl Storz Endoscopy Consulting fee Consulting; Boston Scientific Consulting fee Consulting; Cook Urologic Consulting fee Consulting

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

References
  1. Adams MC, Joseph DB. Urinary Tract Reconstruction in Children. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA. Walsh-Campbell Urology. 9. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elselvier; 2007:Ch. 124.

  2. Cespedes RD, McGuire EJ. Bladder Augmentation. In: Glenn JF, Graham SD, Keane TE. Glenn's Urology. 6. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2004:23.

  3. Dahl DM, McDougal WS. Use of Intestinal Segments in Urinary Diversion. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 9. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elselvier; 2007:Ch. 80.

  4. Lapides J, Diokno AC, Silber SJ, Lowe BS. Clean, intermittent self-catheterization in the treatment of urinary tract disease. J Urol. Mar 1972;107(3):458-61. [Medline].

  5. Kokorowski PJ, Routh JC, Borer JG, Estrada CR, Bauer SB, Nelson CP. Screening for malignancy after augmentation cystoplasty in children with spina bifida: a decision analysis. J Urol. Oct 2011;186(4):1437-43. [Medline].

  6. Wiener JS, Antonelli J, Shea AM, Curtis LH, Schulman KA, Krupski TL, et al. Bladder augmentation versus urinary diversion in patients with spina bifida in the United States. J Urol. Jul 2011;186(1):161-5. [Medline].

  7. Ellsworth PI, Borgstein NG, Nijman RJ, Reddy PP. Use of tolterodine in children with neurogenic detrusor overactivity: relationship between dose and urodynamic response. J Urol. Oct 2005;174(4 Pt 2):1647-51; discussion 1651. [Medline].

  8. Obermayr F, Szavay P, Schaefer J, Fuchs J. Outcome of augmentation cystoplasty and bladder substitution in a pediatric age group. Eur J Pediatr Surg. Mar 2011;21(2):116-9. [Medline].

  9. Gurung PM, Attar KH, Abdul-Rahman A, Morris T, Hamid R, Shah PJ. Long-term outcomes of augmentation ileocystoplasty in patients with spinal cord injury: a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. BJU Int. Aug 18 2011;[Medline].

  10. Herschorn S, Hewitt RJ. Patient perspective of long-term outcome of augmentation cystoplasty for neurogenic bladder. Urology. Oct 1998;52(4):672-8. [Medline].

  11. Leng WW, Blalock HJ, Fredriksson WH, English SF, McGuire EJ. Enterocystoplasty or detrusor myectomy? Comparison of indications and outcomes for bladder augmentation. J Urol. Mar 1999;161(3):758-63. [Medline].

  12. Hedican SP, Schulam PG, Docimo SG. Laparoscopic assisted reconstructive surgery. J Urol. Jan 1999;161(1):267-70. [Medline].

  13. Braren V, Bishop MR. Laparoscopic bladder autoaugmentation in children. Urol Clin North Am. Aug 1998;25(3):533-40. [Medline].

  14. Challacombe B, Dasgupta P. Reconstruction of the lower urinary tract by laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Curr Opin Urol. Nov 2007;17(6):390-5. [Medline].

  15. De E, Pisters LL, Pettaway CA. Salvage prostatectomy with bladder neck closure and continent catheterizable bladder augmentation: 31 month follow-up by patient report and incontinence symptom index. J Urol. 2005;173 (4) abstract 283:78.

  16. De E, Pisters LL, Pettaway CA, Scott S, Westney OL. Salvage prostatectomy with bladder neck closure, continent catheterizable stoma and bladder augmentation: feasibility and patient reported continence outcomes at 32 months. J Urol. Jun 2007;177(6):2200-4; discussion 2204. [Medline].

  17. Desai MM, Gill IS, Goel M, Abreu SC, Ramani AP, Bedaiwy MA, et al. Ureteral tissue balloon expansion for laparoscopic bladder augmentation: survival study. J Endourol. Jun 2003;17(5):283-93. [Medline].

  18. Pattison M, Webster TJ, Leslie J, Kaefer M, Haberstroh KM. Evaluating the in vitro and in vivo efficacy of nano-structured polymers for bladder tissue replacement applications. Macromol Biosci. May 10 2007;7(5):690-700. [Medline].

  19. Víctor D, Burek C, Corbetta JP, Sentagne A, Sager C, Weller S, et al. Augmentation cystoplasty in children without preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. J Pediatr Urol. Aug 8 2011;[Medline].

  20. Van Voskuilen AC, Oerlemans DJ, Weil EH, van den Hombergh U, van Kerrebroeck PE. Medium-term experience of sacral neuromodulation by tined lead implantation. BJU Int. Jan 2007;99(1):107-10. [Medline].

  21. Patel AK, Patterson JM, Chapple CR. The emerging role of intravesical botulinum toxin therapy in idiopathic detrusor overactivity. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. Dec 2006;(151):27-32. [Medline].

  22. Patel AK, Chapple CR. Botulinum toxin injection therapy in the management of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. Dec 2006;(151):1-7. [Medline].

  23. Patel AK, Patterson JM, Chapple CR. Botulinum toxin injections for neurogenic and idiopathic detrusor overactivity: A critical analysis of results. Eur Urol. Oct 2006;50(4):684-709; discussion 709-10. [Medline].

  24. Schurch B, Denys P, Kozma CM, Reese PR, Slaton T, Barron RL. Botulinum toxin A improves the quality of life of patients with neurogenic urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. Sep 2007;52(3):850-8. [Medline].

  25. van Kerrebroeck PE, van Voskuilen AC, Heesakkers JP, Lycklama a Nijholt AA, Siegel S, Jonas U, et al. Results of sacral neuromodulation therapy for urinary voiding dysfunction: outcomes of a prospective, worldwide clinical study. J Urol. Nov 2007;178(5):2029-34. [Medline].

  26. Flood HD, Malhotra SJ, O'Connell HE, Ritchey MJ, Bloom DA, McGuire EJ. Long-term results and complications using augmentation cystoplasty in reconstructive urology. Neurourol Urodyn. 1995;14(4):297-309. [Medline].

  27. Rivas DA, Chancellor MB, Huang B, Epple A, Figueroa TE. Comparison of bladder rupture pressure after intestinal bladder augmentation (ileocystoplasty) and myomyotomy (autoaugmentation). Urology. Jul 1996;48(1):40-6. [Medline].

  28. Gilbert SM, Hensle TW. Metabolic consequences and long-term complications of enterocystoplasty in children: a review. J Urol. Apr 2005;173(4):1080-6. [Medline].

  29. Rink RC, Hollensbee D, Adams MC. Complications of Bladder Augmentation in Children and Comparison of Gastrointestinal Segments. AUA Update Series. 1995;14:122-7.

  30. Castellan M, Gosalbez R, Perez-Brayfield M, Healey P, McDonald R, Labbie A, et al. Tumor in bladder reservoir after gastrocystoplasty. J Urol. Oct 2007;178(4 Pt 2):1771-4; discussion 1774. [Medline].

  31. Filmer RB, Spencer JR. Malignancies in bladder augmentations and intestinal conduits. J Urol. Apr 1990;143(4):671-8. [Medline].

Previous
Next
 
Augmentation cystoplasty. Isolate segment of ileum chosen for augmentation on adequate mesentery, and reestablish intestinal continuity. Close ends of segment with suture, and open antimesenteric surface.
Augmentation cystoplasty. Fold ileal segment, and sew it upon itself. This detubularizes segment, reduces enteric contractions, and maximizes volume that segment contributes to urinary storage.
Augmentation cystoplasty. Anastomose augmenting segment to prepared bladder. Perform wide-mouthed anastomosis to ensure that augmentation is spherical. If this is not carried out properly, augmenting segment can exist only as poorly draining diverticulum that is prone to complications.
Table 1. Comparison of Tissues for Augmentation Cystoplasty
Tissue Segment Advantages Disadvantages
StomachDecreases mucus, infection, and stones; better for short gut and acidosis/azotemiaHemolytic dysuria syndrome
JejunumNone (used only if other segments are contraindicated/unavailable)Electrolyte disturbances; malabsorption
IleumUsually available, well-toleratedElectrolyte disturbances; mucus
Large intestineUsually available, well-toleratedElectrolyte disturbances; mucus; sigmoid: strong contractions
UreterMinimizes mucus, infection, stones and electrolyte effectsRarely available
Table 2. Metabolic Changes Caused By the Use of Various Tissues in Augmentation Cystoplasty
Intestinal Segment Acid-Base Effect K+Cl+Notes
StomachAlkalosisRespiratory insufficiency, seizure, arrhythmia
JejunumAcidosisHyponatremia, azotemia, malabsorption
Ileum/colonAcidosisDiarrhea with loss of colon, ileocecal valve
Previous
Next
 
 
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2012 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.