Purpose Care of children with spina bifida has significantly advanced in the last half century, resulting in gains in longevity and quality of life for affected children and caregivers. Bladder dysfunction is the norm in patients with spina bifida and may result in infection, renal scarring and chronic kidney disease. However, the optimal urological management for spina bifida related bladder dysfunction is unknown. Materials and Methods In 2012 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a working group composed of pediatric urologists, nephrologists, epidemiologists, methodologists, community advocates and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention personnel to develop a protocol to optimize urological care of children with spina bifida from the newborn period through age 5 years. Results An iterative quality improvement protocol was selected. In this model participating institutions agree to prospectively treat all newborns with spina bifida using a single consensus based protocol. During the 5-year study period outcomes will be routinely assessed and the protocol adjusted as needed to optimize patient and process outcomes. Primary study outcomes include urinary tract infections, renal scarring, renal function and bladder characteristics. The protocol specifies the timing and use of testing (eg ultrasonography, urodynamics) and interventions (eg intermittent catheterization, prophylactic antibiotics, antimuscarinic medications). Starting in 2014 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began funding 9 study sites to implement and evaluate the protocol. Conclusions The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Urologic and Renal Protocol for the Newborn and Young Child with Spina Bifida began accruing patients in 2015. Assessment in the first 5 years will focus on urinary tract infections, renal function, renal scarring and clinical process improvements.

Laparoscopic approach was associated with a shorter hospital stay and decreased parenteral narcotic use in patients older than 10 years. Evolving technique may reveal less morbidity in younger patients. Future comparisons to open pyeloplasty should address specific pediatric age groups and outpatient convalescence.

Ureteroscopy is a safe method for the treatment of intrarenal calculi in the prepubertal population. Our ureteroscopic stone-free rate for intrarenal stones is lower than that reported for ureteral stones. Parents should be informed that additional procedures will likely be required, especially in younger patients and those with stones larger than 6 mm.

Bladder management techniques differ between adults and children with spina bifida. Bladder continence outcomes were better in adults, with nearly half reporting continence. Continence was significantly associated with employment status in patients age 25 years or older.

PURPOSE: The life expectancy for people with spina bifida has increased, thus resulting in greater need for guidelines in urologic care in order to protect normal renal function, to develop strategies for urinary continence, and to advance independence through adult years. METHODS: The English literature was assessed from 2002–2015; greater than 300 publications identified. Case reports and opinion pieces were eliminated leaving 100 for in depth review. Clinical questions were then established for each age group that allowed for focused assessment. RESULTS: There was no Level 1 evidence for any of the defined clinical questions. This resulted in group consensus for all questions throughout all age groups. Guidelines were provided for identifying a symptomatic urinary infection, the role of urodynamic bladder testing and identification of bladder hostility, determining methods of renal function assessment and surveillance, the initiation of continence control, and transitioning to self-care through the teen and adult years. CONCLUSION: Urologic guidelines continue to be based on clinical consensus due to the lack of high level evidence-based research. Further research is required in all aspects of urologic management. While not the “Standard of Care,” these guidelines should be considered “Best Practice”.