Cloaca reconstruction: a new algorithm which considers the role of urethral length in determining surgical planning

Richard J Wood; Carlos A Reck-Burneo; Daniel Dajusta; Christina Ching; Rama Jayanthi; D Gregory Bates; Molly E Fuchs; Katherine McCracken; Geri Hewitt; Marc A Levitt

doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.10.022

Cloaca reconstruction: a new algorithm which considers the role of urethral length in determining surgical planning

J Pediatr Surg. 2017 Oct 12:S0022-3468(17)30644-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.10.022. Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ The Center for Colorectal and Pelvic Reconstruction (CCPR), Nationwide Children's Hospital, 700 Children's Drive, Columbus, OH 43205, USA. Electronic address: richard.wood@nationwidechildrens.org.
² The Center for Colorectal and Pelvic Reconstruction (CCPR), Nationwide Children's Hospital, 700 Children's Drive, Columbus, OH 43205, USA.
³ Department of Radiology, Nationwide Children's Hospital, 700 Children's Drive, Columbus, OH 43205, USA.

PMID: 29132797
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.10.022

Abstract

Background: Cloacal malformations represent a uniquely complex challenge for surgeons. The surgical approach to date has been based on the common channel (CC) length with two patient groups considered: less than or greater than 3cm, which we believe is an oversimplification. We reviewed 19 patients, referred after surgery done elsewhere. Eight had postoperative urinary complications, 3 had constant urinary leakage and had been left after surgery with a urethra <1cm, .5 with an original 3 to 5cm common channel, who had undergone total urogenital mobilization (TUM), experienced peri-operative urethral loss needing a vesicostomy, and later, a Mitrofanoff. These patients together with a review of the cloacal and urological literature led us to design a new algorithm where urethral length is a key determinant for care.

Methods: We prospectively collected data on 31 consecutive cloaca patients referred to our team (2014 to 2016) and managed according to this new protocol. The CC length, urethral length, surgical technique employed, and initial outcomes were recorded.

Results: Of 31 primary cases, CC length was 1 to 3cm in 20, 3 to 5cm in 9, and greater than 5cm in 2. In the 1 to 3cm and the 3 to 5cm groups, a urethra less than 1.5cm led us to perform an urogenital separation. We only performed a TUM if the urethra was greater than 1.5cm. Using this protocol, we performed a urogenital separation in 1 of 20 in the 1 to 3cm CC group, 6 of 9 in the 3 to 5cm CC group, and 2 of 2 in the greater than 5cm CC group. Seven patients underwent separation, who with the previous approach, would have had a TUM. Thus far, no urinary leakage or urethral loss has occurred in any patient, but follow-up is less than 3years.

Conclusion: Urethral length appears to be a vitally important component in cloacal reconstruction. A short urethra left after repair can lead to urinary leakage. A TUM done under the wrong circumstances can lead to urethral loss. We describe a new technical approach to cloacal repair which considers urethral length but recognize that long term urological outcomes will need to be carefully documented.

Type of study: Clinical cohort study with no comparative group.

Level of evidence: Level 4.

Keywords: Anorectal malformation; Cloaca; Cloacal reconstruction; Common channel; Imperforate anus; Urethral length; Urogenital sinus.