These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Factors predicting the need for vaginal replacement at the time of primary reconstruction of a cloacal malformation.
    Author: Vilanova-Sanchez A, Halleran DR, Reck CA, McCracken K, Hewitt G, Gasior AC, Weaver L, Ahmad H, Akers A, Jaggers J, Rentea RM, Levitt MA, Wood RJ.
    Journal: J Pediatr Surg; 2020 Jan; 55(1):71-74. PubMed ID: 31711744.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: A subset of patients with cloacal malformations requires vaginal replacement during their primary reconstruction, increasing the surgical complexity. Identifying factors which predict the need for vaginal replacement would facilitate operative planning. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent primary cloacal reconstruction at our Center (2014-2018) and assessed the length of the common channel, urethra, and vagina. The presence of hydrocolpos at birth, Müllerian anomalies, sacral ratio, and tethered cord were also assessed between patients who did and did not require vaginal replacement. RESULTS: 50 patients were identified. 17/50 patients (34%) underwent a total urogenital mobilization (TUM), and none required vaginal replacement. 33/50 (66%) patients underwent a urogenital separation. 19/33 (58%) required vaginal replacement. This group had a shorter vagina (4.2 cm vs 6.6 cm, p < 0.01). There was no difference in urethral or common channel length, number of cervices, sacral ratio, presence of a vaginal septum, hydrocolpos, or tethered cord between those who did and those who did not require vaginal replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Urethral and common channel lengths were used to successfully determine the operative plan (TUM or urogenital separation) to reconstruct cloacal malformations. The need for urogenital separation and a shorter vaginal length were predictive of the need for vaginal replacement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. TYPE OF STUDY: Case series with no comparison groups.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]