What is the outcome of paediatric gastrocystoplasty when the patients reach adulthood?

OBJECTIVE: To document the long-term outcomes of paediatric augmentation gastrocystoplasty (AGC) in terms of preservation of renal function and maintenance of dryness, and to analyse the rate of complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: The medical records of children who had undergone AGC between 1992 and 2000 (minimum time interval of 15 years) were reviewed retrospectively. The following data were collected: age at surgery, the cause of bladder dysfunction, functioning of the AGC, any complications, and the long-term outcome of the patients. All of the patients were re-contacted by telephone.

RESULTS: A total of 11 AGCs were carried out between 1992 and 2000, at a median (range) age of 11 (6.5-14) years. The diagnosis of patients undergoing AGC included myelomeningocele (four), bladder exstrophy (four), posterior urethral valves (one), irradiated bladder (one), and Prune Belly syndrome (one). The median [interquartile range (IQR)] follow-up was 17 (15-19.5) years. Renal function was preserved or improved in seven of the 11 patients and nine patients were dry after AGC. Seven of the 11 patients reported symptoms linked to haematuria-dysuria syndrome, which was resistant to treatment in one case and requiring excision of the gastric patch. Three of the 11 patients developed a tumour on the gastric graft after a median (range) delay of 20 (11-22) years after the initial procedure. All had gastric adenocarcinoma of which two were metastatic at the time of diagnosis requiring pelvectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy. Seven of the 11 patients underwent excision of the gastric patch after a median (IQR) time of 11 (8.5-20.5) years.

CONCLUSIONS: Our long-term data confirmed that most patients undergoing AGC had preservation of their renal function and were continent. However, long-term, AGC was associated with a significant risk of malignant transformation and a high rate of surgical re-intervention involving removal of the gastric patch. These results question the use of this technique for bladder augmentation, irrespective of the indication. We highlight the importance of strict endoscopic follow-up of all patients already having undergone an AGC and the need to inform and educated patients about tumour-related symptoms.