Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Pediatric Surgery International
Published in: Pediatric Surgery International 3/2010

01-03-2010 | Original Article

Urinary bladder auto augmentation using INTEGRA® and SURGISIS®: an experimental model

Authors: Gera Parshotam Kumar, Andrew Barker, Saeed Ahmed, Jevon Gerath, Jillian Orford

Published in: Pediatric Surgery International | Issue 3/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

We present our experience with an experimental urinary bladder auto augmentation model using SURGISIS® and INTEGRA® (collagen layer) in comparison with seromuscular enterocystoplasty. The aim of the study was to evaluate the change in compliance and elasticity of the urinary bladder.

Materials and methods

Eighteen lambs were divided into three different groups. Auto augmentation was performed using the seromuscular layer of small bowel, SURGISIS® or the collagen layer of INTEGRA®. After 3 months of the initial procedure, the lambs were re-operated, the bladder compliance was measured and the urinary bladder was submitted for histological examination and assessment of elasticity. The lambs were euthanized.

Results

The postoperative period was uneventful in 17 lambs except for intestinal obstruction in one lamb from the seromuscular enterocystoplasty group. A statistically significant difference in compliance was observed with SURGISIS® and the INTEGRA®. Histologically, there was neovascularization in all the specimens from the SURGISIS® and INTEGRA® groups with the presence of fibrosis in the SURGISIS® group. The INTEGRA® group showed better elastic properties than the SURGISIS®.

Conclusions

Urinary bladder auto augmentation using the collagen layer of INTEGRA® showed better functional and histological results when compared with SURGISIS® and demucosalized enterocystoplasty in the present model.
Literature
1.
Gilbert SM, Hensle TW (2005) Metabolic consequences and long term complications of enterocystoplasty in children: a review. J Urol 173:1080CrossRefPubMed
2.
Bellinger MF (1993) Ureterocystoplasty: a unique method of vesical augmentation in children. J Urol 149:811PubMed
3.
Couvelaire R (1955) Agrandir la vessie: Chirurgie de la Vesie. Paris, Masson, pp 200–221
4.
Cartwright PC, Snow BW (1989) Bladder autoaugmentation: partial detrusor excision to augment the bladder without use of bowel. J Urol 142:1050PubMed
5.
Shoemaker WC (1955) Reversed seromuscular grafts in urinary tract reconstruction. J Urol 74:453PubMed
6.
7.
Marte A, Di Meglio D, Cotrufo AM, Di Lorio G, De Pasquale M, Vessella A (2002) A long term follow-up of auto augmentation in myelodysplastic children. BJU Int 89:928CrossRefPubMed
8.
MacNeily AE, Afshar K, Coleman GU, Johnson HW (2003) Auto augmentation by detrusor myotomy: its lack of effectiveness in the management of congenital neuropathic bladder. J Urol 170:1643CrossRefPubMed
9.
Perovic SV, Djordjevic MLJ, Kekic ZK, Vukadinovic VM (2002) Bladder auto augmentation with rectus muscle backing. J Urol 168:1877CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Dewan PA, StefanekW LorenzC, Owen AJ, Byard RW (1995) Auto augmentation gastrocystoplasty and demucolized gastrocystoplasty in a sheep model. Urology 45:291CrossRefPubMed
12.
Dewan PA, Lorenz C, Stefanek W, Byard RW (1994) Urothelial lined colocystoplasty in a sheep model. Eur Urol 26:240PubMed
13.
Serhat Gurocak, De Gier Robert PE, Wouter Feitz (2007) Bladder augmentation without integration of intact bowel segments: critical review and future perspectives. J Urol 177:839–844CrossRef
14.
Close CE, Dewan PA, Ashwood PA, Byard RJ, Mitchell ME (2001) Auto augmentation peritoneocystoplasty in a sheep model. BJU Int 88:414CrossRefPubMed
15.
Oge O, Tekgul S, Ergen A, Kendi S (2000) Urothelium-preserving augmentation cystoplasty covered with peritoneal flap. BJU Int 85:802CrossRefPubMed
16.
Sutherland RS, Baskin LS, Hayward SW, Cunha GR (1996) Regeneration of bladder urothelium, smooth muscle, blood vessels and nerves into an acellular matrix. J Urol 156:571CrossRefPubMed
17.
Lima SV, Araujo LA, Vilar FO (2004) Non secretory intestinoplasty: 10 year experience. J Urol 171:2636CrossRefPubMed
18.
Shoemaker WC, Bower RB, Long DM Jr (1957) A new technique for bladder reconstruction. Surg Gynec Obst 105:645
19.
Monsour MJ, Mohammed R, Gorham SD, French DA, Scott R (1987) An assessment of a collagen/vicryl composite membrane to repair defects of the urinary bladder in rabbits. Urol Res 15:235CrossRefPubMed
20.
Fujita K (1978) The use of resin sprayed thin paper for urinary bladder regeneration. Invest Urol 15:355PubMed
21.
Yoo JJ, Meng J, Oberpenning F, Atala A (1998) Bladder augmentation using allogenic bladder mucosa seeded with cells. Urology 51:221CrossRefPubMed
22.
Atala A, Bauer BS, Soker S, Yoo JJ, Retick AB (2006) Tissue engineered autologous bladders for patient needing cystoplasty. Lancet 367:1241CrossRefPubMed
23.
Upadhyaya M, Orford JE, Nicholas Smith, Barker A, Gollow I (2007) Incorporation of integra in tissue defects: a pilot study in the rat model. Pediatr Surg Int 23:669CrossRefPubMed
24.
Lutherman A, Heimbach D, Burke J et al (1988) Artificial dermis for major burns: a multicenter randomised clinical trail. Ann Surg 208:313CrossRef
25.
Moieman NS, Staiano JJ, Ojeh NO et al (2001) Reconstructive surgery with a dermal regeneration template: clinical and histological study. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:93–103CrossRef
26.
Kropp BP, Eppley BL, Prevel CD, Rippy MK, Badylak SF et al (1995) Experimental assessment of small intestinal submucosa as bladder wall substitute. Urology 46:396CrossRefPubMed
27.
Vaught JD, Kropp BP, Sawer BD, Rippy MK, Badykh SF, Shannon HE et al (1996) Detrusor regeneration in the rat using porcine small intestinal submucosa grafts: functional innervation and receptor expression 155:374–378
28.
Caione P, Capozza N, Zavaglia G, Palombaro G, Boldrini R (2006) In vivo bladder regeneration using small intestinal submucosa: experimental study. Pediatr Surg Int 22:593CrossRefPubMed
29.
Paterson RF, Lifshitz DA, Stephen DW, Beck Siqueira TM et al (2002) Multilayered small intestinal submucosa is inferior to autologous bowel for laparoscopic bladder augmentation. J Urol 168:2253–2257CrossRefPubMed
30.
Pope JC IV, Davis MM, Smith ER Jr, Walsh MJ, Ellison PK, Rink RC et al (1997) The ontogeny of canine small intestinal submucosa regenerated bladder. J Urol 158:1105
Metadata
Title
Urinary bladder auto augmentation using INTEGRA® and SURGISIS®: an experimental model
Authors
Gera Parshotam Kumar
Andrew Barker
Saeed Ahmed
Jevon Gerath
Jillian Orford
Publication date
01-03-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Pediatric Surgery International / Issue 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0179-0358
Electronic ISSN: 1437-9813
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-009-2521-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2010

Pediatric Surgery International 3/2010 Go to the issue

Original Article

The effects of N-acetylcysteine on testicular damage in experimental testicular ischemia/reperfusion injury

Original Article

Minimally invasive management of children with caustic ingestion: less pain for patients

Original Article

Use of a combined oxygen/nitrous oxide/morphine chlorydrate protocol for analgesia in burned children requiring painful local care

Case Report

Facial rhabdomyosarcoma with an isolated pancreatic metastasis

Original Article

Urethrocutaneous fistula after hypospadias repair: outcome of three types of closure techniques

Case Report

Symphysiotomy: a valuable approach in children with prostate rhabdomyosarcoma