Study design, materials and methods
Five patients were operated over a period of 2.5 yrs December 2017 – February 2020, they carried out laparoscopic total urogenital separation and rectal pull through.
Interpretation of results
It has been suggested that it is the urethral Length rather than length of the common channel that influence the choice of operation, (1) It is also recommended that Total urogenital mobilisation(TUM) should be avoided in patients with short urethra as intraoperative decision to shift to urogenital separation will risk devascularisation of the urethra.(1)
In literature before the significance of urethral length was highlighted, total urogenital mobilisation was recommended for patients with common channel less that 3 cm and for those >3cm TUM was followed by urogenital separation.(1)
Total urogenital mobilisation was originally fashioned to overcome the technical difficulty of separating the vaginal from the bladder wall.
On the other hand‚ Urogenital separation will preserve the urogenital sinus(common channel) by disconnecting the vagina (fig 1a,b) from the urogenital sinus and saving it for the urethra and joining the vagina to the perineum by the same technique recently described for laparoscopic vaginal pullthrough in patients having congenital hyperplasia. (2) We believe the application of this technique to patients with cloaca is more feasible as there is no debate as regard age of intervention as in patients with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. By preserving the urogenital sinus for the urethra we therefore preserve the continence since continence requires having a bladder with satisfactory capacity and normal intra vesical pressure, together with sufficient outlet resistance to prevent leakage at normal activity.
The separation of the vagina from the common channel is reminiscent of the original cloacal repair in which the vagina was always separated by Dr.Hardy Hendren.(3)