Evidence Hub

Long-term usage pattern and satisfaction survey of continent catheterizable channels

Kim J, Kang SK, Lee YS, Han SW, Han SJ, Kim SW, Ji Y, Park J

Journal of pediatric urology, 2022

67 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the long-term usage pattern and satisfaction of continent catheterizable channels (CCCs).

METHODS: From 2005 to 2018, CCCs, including Mitrofanoff and antegrade continent enema (ACE) channels, were made in 67 patients (Mitrofanoff in 21 patients, ACE channels in 43 patients, and both in three patients) in our institution. An online survey was conducted for these patients in order to assess usage pattern, continent status, difficulty in usage, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS: Sixteen (66.7%) out of 24 patients with the Mitrofanoff channel and 39 (84.7%) out of 46 patients with the ACE channel completed the online survey. In the Mitrofanoff channel group, 10 (62.5%) patients had spina bifida, two (12.5%) had Hinman syndrome, one (6.3%) had posterior urethral valves, and three (18.8%) had urethral trauma or atresia. Additionally, the mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 10.0 years, and the median follow-up duration was 10.9 years. All patients were using the Mitrofanoff channel to perform clean intermittent catheterization (CIC). Eleven patients (68.8%) had difficulty with catheterization, mostly at the stomal site. Most patients conducted CIC more than four times a day (13, 81.3%). Regarding urination status, seven patients (43.8%) responded that they were satisfied and nine (56.2%) responded they were neutral. In the ACE channel group, 35 patients (89.7%) had spina bifida, seven (17.9%) had cloacal anomalies, and 26 (66.7%) had…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 67 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free