4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Long-term followup of newborns with myelodysplasia and normal urodynamic findings: Is followup necessary?

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 165, 期 2, 页码 564-567

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005392-200102000-00070

关键词

bladder; urodynamics; neural tube defects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: A subset of newborns with myelodysplasia have normal bladder function on urodynamic assessment. We analyzed long-term followup in this population to determine the necessity for subsequent urological surveillance. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 25 of 204 newborns (12%) with myelodysplasia in whom neurourological evaluation was normal after surgical repair of the spinal defect. Initial assessment included complete urodynamic study, renal ultrasound, urinalysis and urine culture. These patients were reevaluated every 3 months until age 3 years, semiannually until age 6 years and yearly thereafter. The longest followup was 18.6 years. Results: Of the 25 newborns 22 had myelomeningocele and 3 had meningocele. During a mean followup of 9.1 years urodynamics subsequently showed neurourological deterioration in 8 children (32%). No changes in urodynamics were observed in any patient older than 6 years. All children with neurourological deterioration underwent magnetic resonance imaging, which confirmed a tethered spinal cord that was then surgically corrected. After the untethering procedure 2 patients (25%) regained normal voiding function, whereas in 6 (75%) mild or moderate neurogenic bladder dysfunction persisted. Conclusions: Newborns with myelodysplasia and initially normal urodynamic studies are at risk for neurological deterioration secondary to spinal cord tethering, especially during the first 6 years of life. Close followup of these children is important for the early diagnosis and timely surgical correction of tethered spinal cord, and for the prevention of progressive urinary tract deterioration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据