Modified staged repair of bladder exstrophy: a strategy to prevent penile ischemia while maintaining advantage of the complete primary repair of bladder exstrophy.

INTRODUCTION

Penile ischemic injury is a reported catastrophic complication after complete primary repair of exstrophy (CPRE). Aiming to improve the bladder exstrophy-epispadias repair outcomes, the study institution adopted a modified staged exstrophy repair to incorporate the advantages of CPRE by avoiding concurrent epispadias repair and adding bilateral ureteral re-implantation and bladder neck tailoring (staged repair of bladder exstrophy with bilateral ureteral re-implantation [SRBE-BUR]) at the initial repair. It was hypothesized that such modifications minimize penile complications and prevent upper tract deterioration while enhancing bladder resistance and consequent capacity. Here, a comparative series of outcomes between CPRE and SRBE-BUR is reported.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study including all exstrophy-epispadias male neonates managed in the study institution from January 2000 to December 2014 was performed. Patients were divided into those who underwent CPRE-BUR (group 1) and SRBE-BUR (group 2) (Figure). Baseline characteristics, peri-operative data, and long-term surgical outcomes were collected and analyzed for between-group comparison. Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 21 eligible patients were included: 10 in group 1 and 11 in group 2. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Two patients in group 1 had intra-operative penile ischemic injury (one with subsequent penile tissue loss), whereas none of the group 2 patients had intra-operative complications. No significant difference between the groups was noted for operative time; however, significantly lesser blood loss was noted in group 2. Comparable long-term surgical outcomes such as additional surgical intervention, urinary continence, bladder capacity, vesicoureteral reflux, hydronephrosis and recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) were noted. In addition, although subjective, better penile length and cosmesis were achieved by staging the repair (Figure).

CONCLUSION

The SRBE with bilateral ureteral re-implantation is a safe alternative for the repair of the exstrophy-epispadias repair as it prevents the catastrophic complication of penile tissue loss, while having comparable long-term outcomes with the CPRE. Delaying epispadias repair avoids penile injury besides possible improvement of its overall cosmesis.