Split appendix Mitrofanoffs have higher risk of complication than intact appendix or monti channels.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with certain conditions require catheterizable channels for bladder and bowel management. There are a variety of accepted techniques for creating these channels; the split appendix technique enables the use of this organ for both procedures, obviating the need for more complex surgical procedures. Studies comparing outcomes across catheterizable channel types are limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the urinary channel complication rates of the split appendix, intact appendix and transverse ileal tube (Monti) channels. We hypothesized that complication rates would be the same across all channel types. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent surgical creation of a urinary continent catheterizable channel. We recorded demographics, underlying diagnosis, body mass index, stoma location, surgical techniques, and surgical revisions. The primary outcome was complication (stenosis, leakage, or both) with or without surgical revision, and to compare the three different catheterizable channel types using time to event analysis. RESULTS: From January 2014-July 2018, 107 patients underwent creation of a continent catheterizable urinary channel; 86 (80.4%) patients also underwent simultaneous procedure for antegrade bowel management. The mean age was 7 years; 66 (60.8%) were females. Intact appendices were used in 46 (43.0%), Monti channel in 25 (23.4%), and split appendix technique in 36 (33.6%). The corresponding complication rates with or without surgical revision was 21.7%, 36.0%, and 47.2%, respectively. The only independent factor associated with increased risk of complication was the split appendix technique; these channels were more than twice as likely to require surgical revision with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.32 (Table 4). The majority of revisions in all groups were skin level (58.3%). The most common indication for surgical revision was stenosis (55.6%). DISCUSSION: This analysis shows a statistically significant increase in risk of all complications, including an increase in need for surgical revision, in patients who underwent split appendix technique for simultaneous bladder and bowel catheterizable channels. This finding should be balanced with the fact that a bowel anastomosis is not required in cases where individuals need both a bowel and bladder catheterizable channel. This study is unique in its separation of split and intact appendix channels, and inclusion of patients experiencing complications that have not yet required surgical revision. Limitations of this study include its retrospective design, inclusion of a single institution, and the lack of consistency in documenting baseline appendiceal length. CONCLUSION: Split appendix catheterizable channels have a higher rate of channel complications than other techniques. The authors acknowledge that the split appendix technique has been proven feasible and effective, however recognize that it may not be appropriate for all patients and include counseling of the risks of its use.

Can sacral development as a marker for caudal regression help identify associated urologic anomalies in patients with anorectal malformation?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The sacral ratio (SR) is a well-established tool to quantify sacral development in patients with anorectal malformations (ARM) and can be used as a predictor of fecal continence. We hypothesized that a lower SR correlated with the presence of urologic and renal malformations. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with ARM treated at our center from 2014 to 2016. We measured the lateral SR as a marker for sacral development and assessed the spine for the presence of tethered cord (TC). Urological and renal anomalies, including single kidney, hydronephrosis, hypospadias, vesicoureteral reflux (VUR), ectopic ureter, and penoscrotal transposition were assessed. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-tests, and multivariable linear regression were used to test for differences in SR with consideration of associated urologic malformations and tethered cord. RESULTS: 283 patients with ARM were included for analysis (156 females). The median age was 39months (10-90). Among these, 178 (55.6%) had 1 or more urologic malformations, and 81 (25.3%) had a TC. Hydronephrosis, high-grade VUR (3-5), solitary kidney, and tethered cord were significantly associated with lower SR (p<0.01). In multivariable regression models, the presence of urologic abnormalities remained significantly associated with lower a SR despite the presence or absence of TC (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: SR is a potentially useful indicator of certain urologic anomalies including hydronephrosis, high grade VUR, and solitary kidney in patients with ARM. This association is independent of the presence of TC. A sacral ratio as a part of the VACTERL screening can help the surgeon identify which patients need closer urologic follow up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.