Bladder Volume Assessment in Pediatric Patients With Neurogenic Bladder: Is Ultrasound an Accurate Method?

Point-of-Care Ultrasound in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Ultrasonography has been widely used in medicine for decades but often by specific users such as cardiologists, obstetricians, and radiologists. In the last several years, the use of this imaging modality has moved to the bedside, with clinicians performing and interpreting focused point of care ultrasonography to aid in immediate assessment and management of their patients. The growth of point of care ultrasonography has been facilitated by advancement in ultrasound-related technology and emerging studies and protocols demonstrating its utility in clinical practice. However, considerable challenges remain before this modality can be adopted across the spectrum of disciplines, primarily as it relates to training, competency, and standardization of usage. This review outlines the history, current state, challenges and the future direction of point of care ultrasonography specifically in the field of pediatric critical care medicine.

Efficacy and safety of electrical stimulation in the treatment of neurogenic bladder dysfunction in myelomeningocele-Systematic review of randomized clinical trials

AIMS

The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate and synthesize the effects (benefits and harms) of electrical stimulation (EE), alone or in association with other interventions, compared with sham and other interventions, for the treatment of neurogenic bladder dysfunction in myelomeningocele.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted following the methodological recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020200425). A search was performed in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, LILACS, and PEDro. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed any EE in children diagnosed with myelomeningocele and neurogenic bladder and/or urinary incontinence were included and reported.

RESULTS

When comparing EE versus sham groups, some estimated effects showed a wide confidence interval, probably due to the small sample size of the included studies. This indicates an imprecision in these findings. Regarding the safety of this intervention and safety of the lower urinary tract, no adverse events resulting from EE were reported. All the included studies have evaluated the efficacy of EE compared with sham, but different EE parameters and electrode positions among studies make it impossible to perform a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low certainty evidence, the findings of this systematic review suggested no difference between EE and sham to improve urinary incontinence in children with myelomeningocele. However, the small sample size and the imprecision arising from the wide confidence intervals must be considered. Future RCTs following a rigorous methodology, as recommended by the CONSORT statement, should be conducted to support the use of this intervention in clinical practice.