Combined Mitrofanoff and antegrade continence enema procedures for urinary and fecal incontinence

Purpose: Fecal soiling or intractable constipation frequently occurs in association with urinary incontinence in children undergoing major reconstructive urological operations. To treat double incontinence or the combination of wetting and severe constipation, we constructed a Mitrofanoff conduit and a channel for antegrade continence enemas in 18 patients between 1989 and 1995. We review the underlying pathological conditions, various surgical techniques and outcomes of these operations. Materials and Methods: Underlying abnormalities mainly included spinal lesions, bladder exstrophy, imperforate anus and various cloacal anomalies. Patient age ranged from 2 to 18 years (average 8.4). In 13 patients both procedures were done simultaneously. The appendix was used to construct the antegrade continence enema channel in 8 cases and the Mitrofanoff channel in 5. It was long enough to be divided and used for both procedures in 2 cases but it was missing or unsuitable in 3. Alternative antegrade continence enema conduits were cecal flap in 7 patients and ileum in 1, while the ureter, ileum and detrusor tube were used to establish Mitrofanoff channels in 5, 5 and 1, respectively. Stomas were constructed according to the V-flap or V. Z. Q. technique and situated in close proximity in the light lower abdominal quadrant in 13 cases. Results: Convalescence was uneventful except for 1 abscess near an antegrade continence enema stoma. Ten patients needed dilation or minor revisions due to difficulty in catheterizing the antegrade continence enema (5), Mitrofanoff (3) or both conduits (2). Subsequently 3 patients underwent repeat operations for reconstruction of 2 antegrade continence enema channels (cecal flap and ileum) and 1 detrusor tube Mitrofanoff channel. Currently 15 patients are dry on regular clean intermittent catheterization using 10 to 12F catheters. Outcomes of the antegrade continence enema channels are satisfactory in 15 patients who are clean or rarely soil. Failure occurred in 1 patient with severe constipation necessitating colostomy and 2 (1 noncompliant who stopped catheterizing regularly) in whom the channels subsequently closed. Conclusions: Synchronous construction of antegrade continence enema and Mitrofanoff channels is successful in the majority of doubly incontinent patients. Selection of patients with high motivation is important to obtain satisfactory results.