Evidence Hub

Long-term outcomes of catheterizable continent urinary channels: What do you use, where you put it, and does it matter?

Szymanski KM, Whittam B, Misseri R, Flack CK, Hubert KC, Kaefer M, Rink RC, Cain MP

Journal of pediatric urology, 2015

510 participants

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Appendicovesicostomy (APV) and Monti ileovesicostomy (Monti) are commonly used catheterizable channels with similar outcomes on short-term follow-up. Their relative long-term results have not been previously published.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to assess long-term durability of APV and Monti channels in a large patient cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients ≤21 years old undergoing APV and Monti surgery at our institution (1990-2013). We collected data on demographics, channel type, location, continence and stomal and subfascial revisions. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used.

RESULTS: Of 510 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 214 patients had an APV and 296 had a Monti (50.5% spiral Monti). Median age at surgery was 7.4 years for APV (median follow-up: 5.7 years) and 8.7 years for Monti (follow-up: 7.7 years). Stomal stenosis, overall stomal revisions and channel continence were similar for APV and Monti (p ≥ 0.26). Fourteen APVs (6.5%) had subfascial revisions compared to 49 Montis (16.6%, p = 0.001). On survival analysis, subfascial revision risk at 10 years for APV was 8.6%, Monti channels excluding spiral umbilical Monti: 15.5% and spiral umbilical Monti: 32.3% (p < 0.0001, Figure). On multivariate regression, Monti was 2.09 times more likely than APV to undergo revision (p = 0.03). The spiral Monti to the umbilicus, in particular, was 4.23 times more…

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: 510 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