A new extra-abdominal channel alternative to the Mitrofanoff principle: Experimental and preliminary clinical experience

International Braz J Urol

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 205-216

  Macedo Jr , Antonio ^a   Rosito, Tiago ^a   Pires, Jesus A S ^a   Liguori, Riberto ^a   Ortiz, Valdemar ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Bladder; Children; Mitrofanoff principle; Surgery; Urinary diversion

Indexed keywords

ANASTOMOSIS; ANIMAL; ANIMAL MODEL; APPENDIX; ARTICLE; BLADDER DISEASE; CHILD; CYSTOSTOMY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PRESSURE; RABBIT; SUTURING METHOD; URINARY DIVERSION; URINE INCONTINENCE; URODYNAMICS;

ANASTOMOSIS, SURGICAL; ANIMALS; APPENDIX; CHILD; CYSTOSTOMY; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, ANIMAL; PRESSURE; RABBITS; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; URINARY BLADDER DISEASES; URINARY INCONTINENCE; URINARY RESERVOIRS, CONTINENT; URODYNAMICS;

EID: 76249127217     PISSN: 16775538     EISSN: 16776119     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-55382009000200011     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Mitrofanoff P: Trans-appendicular continent cystos-tomy in the management of the neurogenic bladder. ChirPediatr. 1980; 21: 297-305.
2. Cain MP, Casale AJ, King SJ, Rink RC: Appendicoves-icostomy and newer alternatives for the Mitrofanoff procedure: results in the last 100 patients at Riley Children's Hospital. J Urol. 1999; 162: 1749-52.
3. Narayanaswamy B, Wilcox DT, Cuckow PM, Duffy PG, Ransley PG: The Yang-Monti ileovesicostomy: a problematic channel? BJU Int. 2001; 87: 861-5.
4. Van Savage JG, Khoury AE, McLorie GA, Churchill BM: Outcome analysis of Mitrofanoff principle applica tions using appendix and ureter to umbilical and lower quadrant stomal sites. JUrol. 1996; 156: 1794-7.
5. Thomas JC, Dietrich MS, Trusler L, DeMarco RT, Pope JC 4th, Brock JW 3rd, et al.: Continent catheterizable channels and the timing of their complications. J Urol. 2006; 176: 1816-20; discussion 1820.
6. Vilela ML, Furtado GS, Koh I, Poli-Figueiredo LF, Ortiz V, Srougi M, et al.: What is important for conti nent catheterizable stomas: angulations or extension? Int Braz J Urol. 2007; 33: 254-61; discussion 261-3.
7. Macedo A Jr, Srougi M: A continent catheterizable ileum-based reservoir. BJUInt. 2000; 85: 160-2.
8. Siizer O, Vates TS, Freedman AL, Smith CA, Gonzalez R: Results of the Mitrofanoff procedure in urinary tract reconstruction in children. Br J Urol. 1997; 79: 279-82.
9. McAndrew HF, Malone PS: Continent catheterizable conduits: which stoma, which conduit and which reservoir? BJU Int. 2002; 89: 86-9.
10. Cain MP, Rink RC, Yerkes EB, Kaefer M, Casale AJ: Long-term follow-up and outcome of continent cath eterizable vesicocstomy using the Rink modification. J Urol. 2002; 168:2583-5.
11. Liard A, Seguier-Lipszyc E, Mathiot A, Mitrofanoff P: The Mitrofanoff procedure: 20 years later. J Urol. 2001; 165:2394-8.
12. Horowitz M, Kuhr CS, Mitchell ME: The Mitrofanoff catheterizable channel: patient acceptance. J Urol. 1995; 153:771-2.
13. Kaefer M, Retik AB: The Mitrofanoff principle in continent urinary reconstruction. Urol Clin North Am. 1997; 24: 795-811.
14. Clark T, Pope JC 4th, Adams C, Wells N, Brock JW 3rd: Factors that influence outcomes of the Mitrofanoff and Malone antegrade continence enema reconstruc tive procedures in children. J Urol. 2002; 168: 1537-40; discussion 1540.