Experience with detrusorotomy in children by open and robotic approach

  • Ramnath SubramaniamEmail author
Topic Paper



To present the author’s experience with detrusorotomy (DM) for refractory detrusor overactivity (RDO) with open and robotic approach.


Children who underwent DM for RDO in a single surgeon series since 2012 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Those who completed the defined strict bladder cycling regime postoperatively were included in this report excluding those who failed the bladder cycling regime.


Ten children (M7: F3) were included in this report, six open and four robotic. All procedures were completed with no conversion to open in the robotic group. There were no intra or postoperative complications from the procedures. Duration of procedure was lower in robotic group (125 min) vs the open group at (208 min). Hospital stay was also lower in the robotic group (2.7 days) compared to the open group (5.6 days). All children in open group had concomitant Mitrofanoff channel created for bladder drainage. One child in robotic group had concomitant Mitrofanoff channel during DM. Median follow-up is longer at 54 months (31–82) in open group compared to 14 months (5–21). All children are clinically well with safe upper tracts on US scan in both series. Estimated % change in bladder capacity is similar in both groups at 140 (90–200) and 126 (80–200) for open and robotic groups, respectively.


DM as an extension of medical treatment for RDO can be performed safely and is effective in children. Preliminary experience with robotic approach to DM is promising with reduced duration of procedure and hospital stay.


Detrusorotomy Autoaugmentation Robotic Children 


Author contributions

I (RS) am the sole author for this manuscript and responsible for all aspects of this manuscript including data analysis and writing/editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

I have no disclosures and no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (M4 V 266844 kb)


  1. 1.
    Biers SM, Venn SN, Greenwell TJ (2012) The past, present and future of augmentation cystoplasty. BJU Int 109:1280–1293. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mundy AR (1999) Metabolic complications of urinary diversion. Lancet 353:1813–1814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stein R, Rubenwolf P (2014) Metabolic consequences after urinary diversion. Front Pediatr 2:15. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hansen EL, Hvistendahl GM, Rawashdeh YFH, Olsen LH (2013) Promising long-term outcome of bladder autoaugmentation in children with neurogenic bladder dysfunction. J Urol. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    González R, Ludwikowski BM (2013) Alternatives to conventional enterocystoplasty in children: a critical review of urodynamic outcomes. Front Pediatr. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar SPV, Abrams PH (2005) Detrusor myectomy: long-term results with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. BJU Int 96:341–344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poppas DP, Uzzo RG, Britanisky RG et al (1996) Laparoscopic laser assisted auto-augmentation of the pediatric neurogenic bladder: early experience with urodynamic followup. J Urol. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cartwright PC, Snow BW (1989) Bladder autoaugmentation: early clinical experience. J Urol 142:505–508 (discussion 520–1) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marte A, Di Meglio D, Cotrufo AM et al (2002) A long-term follow-up of autoaugmentation in myelodysplastic children. BJU Int. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    MacNeily AE, Afshar K, Coleman GU, Johnson HW (2003) Autoaugmentation by detrusor myotomy: its lack of effectiveness in the management of congenital neuropathic bladder. J Urol 170:1643–1646. (discussion 1646) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gurocak S, De Gier RPE, Feitz W (2007) Bladder augmentation without integration of intact bowel segments: critical review and future perspectives. J Urol 177:839–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rocha FT, Bruschini H, Figueiredo JA et al (2011) Use of an inflatable silicone balloon improves the success rate of bladder autoaugmentation at long-term followup. J Urol 185:2576–2581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Djordjevic ML, Vukadinovic V, Stojanovic B et al (2015) Objective long-term evaluation after bladder autoaugmentation with rectus muscle backing. J Urol. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gamé X, Mouracade P, Chartier-Kastler E et al (2009) Botulinum toxin-A (Botox®) intradetrusor injections in children with neurogenic detrusor overactivity/neurogenic overactive bladder: a systematic literature review. J Pediatr Urol 5:156–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Altaweel W, Jednack R, Bilodeau C, Corcos J (2006) Repeated intradetrusor botulinum toxin type A in children with neurogenic bladder due to myelomeningocele. J Urol 175:1102–1105. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verpoorten C, Buyse GM (2008) The neurogenic bladder: medical treatment. Pediatr Nephrol 23:717–725. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lendvay TS, Cowan CA, Mitchell MM et al (2006) Augmentation cystoplasty rates at children’s hospitals in the United States: a pediatric health information system database study. J Urol 176:1716–1720. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustAffiliated to University of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations