Mitrofanoff continent catheterizable conduits: Top down or bottom up?

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.


Objective: During augmentation and Mitrofanoff procedures, conduits are usually implanted into the posterior bladder wall. Anatomical considerations may necessitate an anterior conduit. To compare the relative drainage efficiency in patients with posterior and anterior conduits, we studied their rates of bladder stone formation and urinary tract infection (UTI). Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review identified exstrophy patients who underwent augmentation and Mitrofanoff between 1991 and 2003. Patients with 3 years or greater follow-up were included. Fifty-four patients fit this criterion, with a conduit implanted anteriorly (33) or posteriorly (21). We compared rates of bladder stone formation and UTI. Stomal revisions and the status of the bladder neck were also noted. Results: Stone formation and UTI rates were higher in the anterior conduits, although only UTI showed a statistically significant difference. Patient demographics were similar between the two groups, including age and sex. The rates of stomal complications and the bladder neck status were also similar. Conclusions: Patients with anterior conduits had an increased risk of UTI and bladder stone formation compared to those with posterior conduits, although this was not significant in the case of bladder stone rate. This may indicate sub-optimal bladder drainage and should be addressed with careful preoperative counseling and close follow-up. © 2008 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company.




Berkowitz, J., North, A. C., Tripp, R., Gearhart, J. P., & Lakshmanan, Y. (2009). Mitrofanoff continent catheterizable conduits: Top down or bottom up? Journal of Pediatric Urology, 5(2), 122–125.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free