People with spina bifida use their MACE on long-term follow-up: A single institutional retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: While the Malone antegrade continence enema (MACE) facilitates bowel movements in patients with spina bifida (SB) and neuropathic bowel, little is known about its long-term use. We aimed to assess long-term MACE use and potential risk factors for disuse. METHODS: All patients with SB who underwent MACE procedures at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Main outcome was MACE disuse (no longer catheterizing the MACE for antegrade enemas) based on self-report on a clinic questionnaire, or medical record for patients last seen before introducing the questionnaire 5 years ago. Survival analysis used two timeframes time after surgery (Analysis 1) and chronological age accounting for older children reaching adulthood earlier (Analysis 2). RESULTS: Overall, 411 patients (54% female, 78% shunted, 65% augmented) underwent a MACE procedure at median 7.9 years old (median follow-up 8.4 years). Thirty-three (8%) patients no longer used their MACE. Most common reasons for doing so were channel/stomal stenosis (61%) and excision at colostomy or other abdominal surgery (12%). Bowel management afterwards included oral agents ± enemas (55%), Chait tube (30%), colostomy (12%). After correcting for differential follow-up, 90% of participants used their MACE at 10 years and 87% at 15 years after surgery. Based on chronological age, 97% used their MACE at 15 years old, 92% at 20 and 81% at 30 (Summary Figure). On multivariate analysis, umbilical MACEs were 2.4 times more likely to be disused than right lower quadrant MACEs (p = 0.04). Without correcting for chronological age (Analysis 1), patients undergoing MACE surgery at older ages were more likely to stop MACE use (p = 0.03). However, after accounting for chronological age (Analysis 2), patients undergoing a MACE procedure at older ages were no more likely to stop its use (p = 0.47, Figure). Gender, SB type, shunt status, mobility status, bladder augmentation or a urinary catheterizable channel were not associated with stopping MACE use (p ≥ 0.10). COMMENT: Participants were regularly followed in multi-disciplinary SB clinics. We did not assess continence, satisfaction or long-term urinary channel use, making it premature to recommend optimal stomal locations. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with SB followed by a multi-disciplinary team continue using their MACE; 1% stopped MACE use annually, particularly after adolescence. This strongly suggests it is an effective bowel management method and transitioning to self-care plays a role in maintaining long-term MACE use. Umbilical MACEs may be at high risk of disuse, but all people with a MACE can benefit from support as they transition to adult care.