Surgical outcomes of bladder augmentation: A comparison of three different augmentation procedures

Table 1 Characteristics of patients and concomitant surgery in all three groups

	Patients, n	Sex, male/female	Age at surgery in yr	Follow-up duration in mo	Ureteral reimplantation	Pyramidalis myofascial sling	Continent catheterizable channel
SC	46	21/25	10.8	36	32	16	19
SCLU	37	22/15	7.5	61	14	35	0
AA	13	5/8	4.8	36	11	0	0

SC: Standard cystoplasty; SCLU: Seromuscular cystoplasty lined with urothelium; AA: Auto-augmentation.

Table 2 Urodynamic parameters of patients in all three groups before and after surgery

	SC	SCLU	AA
Preoperative capacity in mL	174 ± 11.7	165 ± 12.2	138 ± 16.7
Postoperative capacity in mL	387 ± 13.7a	240 ± 14.7	181 ± 9.9a
Preoperative compliance in mL/cm H2O	4.8 ± 0.6	3.6 ± 0.2	3.4 ± 0.7
Postoperative compliance in mL/cm H2O	26.7 ± 1.9a	8.8 ± 1.1	5.7 ± 0.5
Preoperative end-filling pressure in cm H2O	44.9 ± 2.4	50.6 ± 2.6	52.5 ± 3.7
Postoperative end-filling pressure in cm H2O	20.7 ± 1.6a	44.2 ± 3.2	39.6 ± 2.3

^aP < 0.05, parameters compared to the seromuscular cystoplasty lined with urothelium group. SC: Standard cystoplasty; SCLU: Seromuscular cystoplasty lined with urothelium; AA: Auto-augmentation.

Table 3 Postoperative complications in all three groups, n (%)

	Total patients, n	Recurrent UTIs	Bladder calculi	Re-do augmentation
SC	46	4 (8)	3 (6)	0
SCLU	37	2 (5)	0	8 (22)
AC	13	0	0	3 (23)

SC: Standard cystoplasty; SCLU: Seromuscular cystoplasty lined with urothelium; AA: Auto-augmentation; UTIs: Urinary tract infections.