Loading…
Bowel vaginoplasty in children
OBJECTIVES: To describe our experience with bowel vaginoplasty done in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of eight children aged 10 months to 8 years, who underwent bowel vaginoplasty over a period of 5 years (2000-2005). The indications of bowel vaginoplasty included ano...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons 2006-04, Vol.11 (2), p.92-96 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | OBJECTIVES: To describe our experience with bowel vaginoplasty done in
children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of
eight children aged 10 months to 8 years, who underwent bowel
vaginoplasty over a period of 5 years (2000-2005). The indications of
bowel vaginoplasty included anorectovestibular fistula (ARVF)
associated with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome (n=6)
and cloaca (n=2). The bowel segment used for vaginoplasty included
colon (n=3), ileum (n=2) and duplicated rectum (n=1). In two patients
of ARVF associated with uterovaginal agenesis, the distal- most part of
ARVF was transected at the level of peritoneal reflection and left as
neovagina, whereas the proximal bowel was pulled through at the
proposed neo-anal site. All the patients were advised daily home
dilatation of the neo vaginal orifice with Hegar′s dilators, for
a period of six weeks. RESULTS: Bowel vaginoplasty was done in eight
patients. None had any significant per-operative complication. Two
patients had abdominal wound dehiscence, requiring secondary suturing.
Two patients had mucosal prolapse of the neovagina, which required
trimming. One patient died two months after discharge, because of
meningitis. Out of the eight patients, seven are in regular follow-up.
Six patients have neovagina, cosmetically acceptable to the parents;
all have been radiologically proven to have adequate length. One
patient had unacceptable perineal appearance with nipple-like vaginal
orifice and scarred perineal wound, that merits a revision. None of the
patients had vaginal stenosis and excessive mucus discharge, during
follow-up visits. Although post surgical results are acceptable to the
parents cosmetically, the sexual and psychological outcome is yet to be
assessed. Conclusions: Bowel vaginoplasty is a safe and acceptable
procedure to treat the pediatric patients of uterovaginal agenesis and
cloaca. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0971-9261 |
DOI: | 10.4103/0971-9261.25932 |