Pediatric Surgery International

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 263–269 | Cite as

Early vaginal replacement in cloacal malformation

  • Shilpa SharmaEmail author
  • Devendra K. Gupta
Original Article



We assessed the surgical outcome of cloacal malformation (CM) with emphasis on need and timing of vaginal replacement.


An ambispective study of CM was carried out including prospective cases from April 2014 to December 2017 and retrospective cases that came for routine follow-up. Early vaginal replacement was defined as that done at time of bowel pull through. Surgical procedures and associated complications were noted. The current state of urinary continence, faecal continence and renal functions was assessed.


18 patients with CM were studied with median age at presentation of 5 days (1 day–4 years). 18;3;2 babies underwent colostomy; vaginostomy; vesicostomy. All patients underwent posterior sagittal anorectovaginourethroplasty (PSARVUP)/ Pull through at a median age of 13 (4–46) months. Ten patients had long common channel length (> 3 cm). Six patients underwent early vaginal replacement at a median age of 14 (7–25) months with ileum; sigmoid colon; vaginal switch; hemirectum in 2;2;1;1. Three with long common channel who underwent only PSARVUP had inadequate introitus at puberty. Complications included anal mucosal prolapse, urethrovaginal fistula, perineal wound dehiscence, pyometrocolpos, bladder injury and pelvic abscess. Persistent vesicoureteric reflux remained in 8. 5;2 patients had urinary; faecal incontinence. 2 patients of uterus didelphys are having menorrhagia. One patient succumbed to sepsis at 7 months age. Renal functions remained normal in 16. One patient is undergoing dialysis.


Early vaginal replacement in CM is feasible. Patients with inadequate introitus may suffer from menorrhagia. A regular follow-up is mandatory.


Vaginoplasty Cloaca Paediatric vaginal reconstruction 


  1. 1.
    Peña A, Levitt MA, Hong A, Midulla P (2004) Surgical management of cloacal malformations: a review of 339 patients. J Pediatr Surg 39:470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levitt MA, Peña A (2010) Cloacal malformations: lessons learned from 490 cases. Semin Pediatr Surg 19:128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lima M, Ruggeri G, Randi B et al (2010) Vaginal replacement in the paediatric age group: a 34-year experience of intestinal vaginoplasty in children and young girls. J Pediatr Surg 45:2087–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldwin JF (1904) The formation of an artificial vagina by intestinal transplantation. Ann Surg 40:398Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hitchcock RJ, Malone PS (1994) Colovaginoplasty in infants and children. Br J Urol 73:196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hensle TW, Railay EA (1998) Vaginal replacement in children and young adults. J Urol 159:1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tillem SM, Stock JA, Hanna MK (1998) Vaginal construction in children. J Urol 160:186–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parsons JK, Gearhart LS, Gearhart JP (2002) Vaginal reconstruction utilizing sigmoid colon: complications and long-term results. J Pediatr Surg 37:629–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Connor JL, DeMarco RT, Pope VIJC et al (2004) Bowel vaginoplasty in children: a retrospective review. J Pediatr Surg 39:1205–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rajimwale A, Furness PD, Brant WO et al (2004) Vaginal construction using sigmoid colon in children and young adults. BJU Int 94:115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hensle TW, Shabsigh A, Shabsigh R et al (2006) Sexual function following bowel vaginoplasty. J Urol 175:2283–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Urbanowicz W, Starzyk J, Sulislawski J (2004) Laparoscopic vaginal reconstruction using a sigmoid colon segment: a preliminary report. J Urol 171:2632–2635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bailez MM (2007) Laparoscopy in uterovaginal anomalies. Semin Pediatr Surg 16:278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bischoff A, Levitt MA, Breech L, Hall J, Peña (2013) Vaginal switch—a useful technical alternative to vaginal replacement for select cases of cloaca and urogenital sinus. J Pediatr Surg 48:363–366 (Erratum in J Pediatr Surg. 48:1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bischoff A (2016) The surgical treatment of cloaca. Semin Pediatr Surg 25:102–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bal HS, Sen S, Sam C, Chacko J, Mathai J, Regunandan SR (2017) Urogenital management in cloaca: an alternative approach. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 22:108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deligeoroglou E, Kontoravdis A, Makrakis E et al (2004) Development of leiomyomas on the uterine remnants of two women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 81:1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hiroi H, Yasugi T, Matsumoto K et al (2001) Mucinous adenocarcinoma arising in a neovagina using the sigmoid colon thirty years after operation: a case report. J Surg Oncol 77:61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kisku S, Varghese L, Kekre A, Sen S, Karl S, Mathai J, Thomas RJ, Kishore R (2015) Bowel vaginoplasty in children and young women: an institutional experience with 55 patients. Int Urogynecol J 26:1441–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sharma S, Bhanot R, Yadav DK, Gupta DK (2018) Long term outcome of cloacal malformations. In: Accepted for presentation at IAPSCON 2018, Oct 25–28th, ChandigarhGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matsui F, Shimada K, Matsumoto F, Obara T, Kubota A (2009) Bladder function after total urogenital mobilization for persistent cloaca. J Urol 182:2455–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pediatric SurgeryAll India Institute of Medical SciencesNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations