Impact of bilateral ureteral reimplantation at the time of complete primary repair of bladder exstrophy on reflux rates, renogram abnormalities and bladder capacity.

INTRODUCTION: Bilateral ureteral reimplantation at the time of the complete primary repair of bladder exstrophy (BUR-CPRE) has been proposed and has demonstrated favorable outcomes in the past. However, the potential benefits, including prevention of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) and renal scarring must be tempered with any risks of reimplantation, persistent VUR, and the potential for overtreatment. We aimed to determine the impact of BUR-CPRE on reflux rates, renogram findings and bladder capacity. METHODS: An IRB approved registry of children treated for bladder exstrophy epispadias complex (BEEC) during a long-term international collaboration hosted in a region with high prevalence of BEEC was queried. Children undergoing primary CPRE for bladder exstrophy (BE) were identified. Surgical procedure and outcome measures nuclear medicine dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scintigraphy scans, voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG), and urodynamic study (UDS) were assessed for presence and degree of VUR, renogram abnormalities, and bladder capacity. RESULTS: A total cohort of 147 patients with BEEC was queried; 52 children (37 males, 71%) underwent primary CPRE for BE between 2009 and 2019 at median age of 1.1 years (IQR 0.6-1.9 years) with median follow up 4.4 years (IQR 2.4-6.4 years). BUR-CPRE was performed in 22/52 (42%). After BUR-CPRE, children were less likely to have VUR (any VUR present in 9 of 20 with imaging (45%) compared to 23 of 26 with imaging (82%) in the CPRE alone group (p = 0.007)). VUR in the BUR-CPRE group tended to be unilateral and lower grade in comparison to the CPRE alone group. DMSA abnormalities were less common in the BUR-CPRE group (4/19 (21%) vs.12/27 (44%)), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.1). At 4 years follow-up, the BUR-CPRE group had a larger bladder capacity (p = 0.016). DISCUSSION: After BUR-CPRE, children had a lower rate of VUR, and when present, VUR was more often unilateral and lower grade compared to the CPRE alone group. Fewer numbers of children in the BUR-CPRE group depicted DMSA abnormalities. No children developed obstruction after BUR-CPRE and none have undergone repeat reimplantation. We documented a larger bladder capacity at the time of maximum follow-up available (4 years)-but further data are needed to confirm this observation. CONCLUSION: BUR-CPRE decreases the incidence and severity of VUR after CPRE, but the clinical significance of this remains unclear. We are encouraged by these initial results, but since BUR-CPRE does not uniformly eliminate VUR, we continue to proceed carefully in the well selected patient.

Back to the future: The Cecil-Culp technique for salvage penile reconstructive procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Re-operative penile reconstruction is challenging and requires tension-free skin closure. The repair popularized by Cecil and Culp in the 1940s, using the scrotum to provide a temporary vascularized bed for complex hypospadias repairs, fell out of favor due to temporal trends towards single-stage repairs and concern for utilizing hair-bearing skin on the penile shaft. OBJECTIVE: It was hypothesized that a modified Cecil-Culp (CC) concept of penile scrotalization, leaving the penis attached to the scrotum for 1 year rather than 6 weeks as originally described, improves outcomes with this reconstruction for ventral skin deficiency or poor vascular support. METHODS: Institutional Review Board-approved registries were reviewed to identify patients who underwent a CC repair during 1987-2016 at two institutions. Cecil-Culp technique was utilized in multi-stage hypospadias complication repairs or for insufficient ventral penile shaft skin coverage. Anatomic abnormality, number and type of prior surgeries, and complications before and after CC were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients underwent CC: 23 failed hypospadias repairs, three hypospadias after bladder exstrophy, 10 penile curvature following circumcision, and three with skin loss from trauma. Mean age at CC was 61.8 months (hypospadias), and 59.8 months (non-hypospadias). Hypospadias patients underwent a mean of 3.6 surgeries (range 1-9) prior to CC. Four of the 39 patients (10.3%) had perioperative complications after CC, including scrotal abscess, skin infections, and difficulty removing the urethral stent. Eight of 37 (21.6%) patients had longer-term complications related to their hypospadias repair, including fistulae, diverticula, dehiscence, and stricture. Mean time from CC placement to release was 345 and 473 days for hypospadias and non-hypospadias cases, respectively. There was no apparent scrotal skin transferred to the penile shaft at the final take-down. Mean follow-up was 22.3 months. DISCUSSION: Embedding the penis into the scrotum for added vascularity and ventral skin coverage has been used effectively in cases of the most tenacious fistulas and for significant skin loss and trauma. Limitations of this study were its retrospective approach at two institutions over an extended period of time by multiple surgeons, so patient selection and procedure may have varied. CONCLUSIONS: Modification of CC repair by delaying 9-12 months before CC take-down enhanced the benefits of a robust vascular bed for wound healing, and helped to avoid transfer of hair-bearing scrotal skin to the penile shaft. The CC technique is an important tool for penile reconstructive surgery of complex hypospadias repairs with inadequate skin, and for traumatic injuries.