Vesicostomy button: how is it placed, in whom, and how is quality of life affected?

ABSTRACT Purpose The vesicostomy button has been shown to be a safe and effective bladder management strategy for short- or medium-term use when CIC cannot be instituted. This study reports our use with the vesicostomy button, highlighting the pros and cons of its use and complications. We then compared the quality or life in patients with vesicostomy button to those performing clean intermittent catheterization. Materials and Methods Retrospective chart review was conducted on children who had a vesicostomy button placed between 2011 and 2015. Placement was through existing vesicostomy, open or endoscopically. We then evaluated placement procedure and complications. A validated quality of life questionnaire was given to patients with vesicostomy button and to a matched cohort of patients performing clean intermittent catheterization. Results Thirteen children have had a vesicostomy button placed at our institution in the 4 year period, ages 7 months to 18 years. Indications for placement included neurogenic bladder (5), non-neurogenic neurogenic bladder (3), and valve bladders (5). Five out of 7 placed via existing vesicostomy had leakage around button. None of the endoscopically placed buttons had leakage. Complications were minor including UTI (3), wound infection (1), and button malfunction/leakage (3). QOL was equal and preserved in patients living with vesicostomy buttons when compared to CIC. Conclusion The vesicostomy button is an acceptable alternative to traditional vesicostomy and CIC. The morbidity of the button is quite low. Endoscopic insertion is the optimal technique. QOL is equivalent in patients with vesicostomy button and those who perform CIC.

Vesicostomy button: how is it placed, in whom, and how is quality of life affected?

PURPOSE: The vesicostomy button has been shown to be a safe and effective bladder management strategy for short- or medium-term use when CIC cannot be instituted. This study reports our use with the vesicostomy button, highlighting the pros and cons of its use and complications. We then compared the quality or life in patients with vesicostomy button to those performing clean intermittent catheterization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review was conducted on children who had a vesicostomy button placed between 2011 and 2015. Placement was through existing vesicostomy, open or endoscopically. We then evaluated placement procedure and complications. A validated quality of life questionnaire was given to patients with vesicostomy button and to a matched cohort of patients performing clean intermittent catheterization. RESULTS: Thirteen children have had a vesicostomy button placed at our institution in the 4 year period, ages 7 months to 18 years. Indications for placement included neurogenic bladder (5), non-neurogenic neurogenic bladder (3), and valve bladders (5). Five out of 7 placed via existing vesicostomy had leakage around button. None of the endoscopically placed buttons had leakage. Complications were minor including UTI (3), wound infection (1), and button malfunction/leakage (3). QOL was equal and preserved in patients living with vesicostomy buttons when compared to CIC. CONCLUSION: The vesicostomy button is an acceptable alternative to traditional vesicostomy and CIC. The morbidity of the button is quite low. Endoscopic insertion is the optimal technique. QOL is equivalent in patients with vesicostomy button and those who perform CIC.

Development and evaluation of a training model for paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy and catheterization.

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy is a technique that should be learned by all surgical trainees and residents. This study aimed to develop a self-made training model for paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy and placement of the suprapubic catheter and then to evaluate its effectiveness in training fourth-year medical students. METHODS: Medical students were divided into an experimental group receiving comprehensive training involving literature, video, and model use and a control group receiving all the same training protocols as the experimental group except without hands-on practice using the model. Each student's performance was video-recorded, followed by subjective and objective evaluations by urology experts and statistical analysis. RESULTS: All students completed the surgical procedures successfully. The experimental group's performance scores were significantly higher than those of the control group (median final performance scores of 91.0 vs. 86.8, respectively). Excellent scores were achieved by more students in the experimental group than in the control group (55% vs. 20%), and fewer poor scores were observed in the experimental group than in the control group (5% vs. 30%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on its cost-effectiveness, reusability, and training effectiveness, this paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy training model is able to achieve goals in teaching practice quickly and easily. Use of the model should be encouraged for training senior medical students and resident physicians who may be expected to perform emergent suprapubic catheter insertion at some time.

Development and evaluation of a training model for paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy and catheterization

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy is a technique that should be learned by all surgical trainees and residents. This study aimed to develop a self-made training model for paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy and placement of the suprapubic catheter and then to evaluate its effectiveness in training fourth-year medical students. METHODS: Medical students were divided into an experimental group receiving comprehensive training involving literature, video, and model use and a control group receiving all the same training protocols as the experimental group except without hands-on practice using the model. Each student's performance was video-recorded, followed by subjective and objective evaluations by urology experts and statistical analysis. RESULTS: All students completed the surgical procedures successfully. The experimental group's performance scores were significantly higher than those of the control group (median final performance scores of 91.0 vs. 86.8, respectively). Excellent scores were achieved by more students in the experimental group than in the control group (55% vs. 20%), and fewer poor scores were observed in the experimental group than in the control group (5% vs. 30%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on its cost-effectiveness, reusability, and training effectiveness, this paracentetic suprapubic cystostomy training model is able to achieve goals in teaching practice quickly and easily. Use of the model should be encouraged for training senior medical students and resident physicians who may be expected to perform emergent suprapubic catheter insertion at some time.

A rare complication associated to a suprapubic cystostomy: catheter knotting.

We report a rare case of spontaneous catheter knotting in the setting of a suprapubic cystostomy and also review previous reports and the rationale behind this event.

New application of the gastrostomy button for clinical and urodynamic evaluation before vesicostomy closure.

PURPOSE: We report use of the Bard gastrostomy button to occlude vesicostomy and provide access for intermittent catheterization before closure in children with vesicostomy. Evaluation of bladder function in such children usually relies on radiographic and urodynamic studies, which may fail to predict bladder compliance, emptying and continence after closure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Buttons were placed before vesicostomy closure in 1 boy with the prune-belly syndrome and 2 girls with cloacal anomalies 2.5 to 10 years old. The patients had undergone vesicostomy using the Blocksom technique soon after birth because of urinary infection, and impairment of bladder emptying and renal function. RESULTS: With the button in place bladder emptying, compliance, continence and possible upper tract changes could be evaluated during several weeks. Button coaptation to the vesicostomy was complete with no urine leakage around the device, allowing easy intermittent drainage through its channel. After 4 weeks the buttons did not have any encrustation or lithiasis and patients were free of urinary infection. Vesicostomy was closed in each patient and the period of temporary closure provided by the button was predictive of future bladder behavior. CONCLUSIONS: This new and original application of the gastrostomy button as a temporary vesicostomy closure may be useful to predict the clinical and urodynamic responses of a defunctionalized bladder in patients with vesicostomy who are candidates for urinary undiversion.