Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39619083›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2024

Obstetrical Outcomes in Women With a History of Bladder Augmentation.

Porela-Tiihonen Susanna, Jernman Riina, Taskinen Seppo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Porela-Tiihonen SusannaDepartment of Pediatric Surgery Kuopio University Hospital and University of Eastern Finland Kuopio Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-4995-262X
Jernman RiinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki Finland.
Taskinen SeppoDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, New Children's Hospital Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate possible problems during pregnancy or delivery in women with pediatric bladder augmentation. Methods: Eleven of 59 women, who had undergone bladder augmentation in our pediatric hospital during 1990-2019, had given birth in our hospital district afterwards and their obstetrical records were evaluated. Results: Median age at first delivery was 32 years (range 26-42). Six patients had myelomeningocele, two had bladder exstrophy and the remainder had VATER association, epispadias or traumatic paraplegia with vesicovaginal fistula. The patients had altogether 18 children (all singletons). Catheterizations were performed through continent stoma in six cases and through urethra in five cases. None of the patients needed an indwelling catheter before delivery. Antibiotic prophylaxis was initially in use during two pregnancies. Symptomatic urinary tract infections (UTIs) developed for five mothers in 11 pregnancies without prophylaxis and prophylaxis was continued after UTI in these cases. Three of the five mothers with UTI were treated with intravenous antibiotics due to pseudomonas infection (three infections) or pyelonephritis (one).Two patients with myelomeningocele delivered vaginally (one woman three times and one woman once). In the remaining 14 cases a cesarean section (CS) was performed (two urgent and one emergency CS). A urologist was present in seven CSs. Some difficulties accessing the uterus were reported in seven surgeries. There were 10-term, three late-preterm and one very preterm delivery. In four cases the information on gestational age was unavailable. Six newborns had respiratory problems, two had severe asphyxia. One newborn had myelomeningocele like her mother. Conclusions: Risk for UTIs during pregnancy is high in bladder augmentation patients, hence prophylactic antibiotics are justified. A multidisciplinary team should be involved in the planning of delivery. When indicated for obstetrical or urological reasons, an elective cesarean section with a urologist present may be the most rational option for many, although vaginal delivery is possible in selected patients.

Indexed as

augmentation cystoplastybladder augmentationcesarean sectiondeliverypregnancy

Identifiers

PMID39619083
PMCPMC11605474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.