Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 21, 2025

Transcorporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Placement in a Case Requiring Revision for Urethral Atrophy
Published on: June 16, 2022
Single institution experience of cloacal malformation
Victoria A Lane1, Anupam Lall1, Bruce Jaffray1
1Department of Paediatric Surgery, The Great North Children's Hospital, The Royal Victoria Infirmary, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 4LP, UK.
Introduction:
The aim of this study is to report on the outcomes of patients born with cloacal malformation, managed at a single institution more than the last 28 years. The focus of this study is the long term renal and colorectal outcomes.
Methods:
Patients were identified from the departmental database from 1994 to 2021. The medical records and operative notes were retrospectively reviewed.
Results:
Twenty-one patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Eleven long common channel (LCC) and ten short common channel (SCC) cloacae patients were identified. Median age at the time of primary reconstruction was 11 months in both groups. In the LCC group, seven (63.6%) patients underwent a Total Urogenital Mobilisation (TUM), and 4 (36.4%) required a vaginal replacement. 6/11 (54.5%) of patients required drainage of a hydrocolpos. In the SCC group, four patients required a TUM, two patients underwent mobilisation of the rectum and vagina alone, and three underwent rectal mobilisation alone. Two patients have required renal transplant for congenital renal dysplasia, and two have developed chronic renal failure associated with the sequalae of vesicoureteric reflux. Eleven (52.3%) of the patients manage their bowels with an antegrade continent enema (ACE), and two of the LCC cloaca are defunctioned with a colostomy. Clean intermittent catheterisation is performed by 12 (57%) of the patients, either per urethra or via a Mitrofanoff channel.
Conclusion:
The urinary and faecal continence are the main challenges in the management of cloaca patients. Many require surgical intervention to achieve social continence.
Level Of Evidence:
Level IV.

