Management of rectal injury and rectourinary fistula from radical prostatectomy

Objective: This study aimed to demonstrate our management of rectal injury (RI) and rectourinary fistula (RUF) from radical prostatectomy (RP) and identify a possible factor that increased the chance of developing RUF. Materials and Methods: Between January 2011 and December 2019, a total of 14 case...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nuttaphon Luchaichana, Patkawat Ramart
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2023-01-01
Series:Urology Annals
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.urologyannals.com/article.asp?issn=0974-7796;year=2023;volume=15;issue=1;spage=31;epage=34;aulast=Luchaichana
_version_ 1797902784350126080
author Nuttaphon Luchaichana
Patkawat Ramart
author_facet Nuttaphon Luchaichana
Patkawat Ramart
author_sort Nuttaphon Luchaichana
collection DOAJ
description Objective: This study aimed to demonstrate our management of rectal injury (RI) and rectourinary fistula (RUF) from radical prostatectomy (RP) and identify a possible factor that increased the chance of developing RUF. Materials and Methods: Between January 2011 and December 2019, a total of 14 cases of RI were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed, including preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative information. Results: In all 14 cases of RI, the average age at RP was 66.3 years (54–77). During the study period, 8 of 14 cases of RI occurred in our hospital, and the incidence of RI was 0.42%. RI was intraoperative recognition in 8 cases and delayed diagnosis in 6 cases. For immediate recognition, 4 of 8 cases were primarily repaired without developing RUF and did not require diverting colostomy and suprapubic cystostomy. RUF occurred in 10 cases including 4 cases of intraoperative recognition and all cases of delayed diagnosis. In a subgroup analysis of RI that occurred in our hospital, the timing for diagnosis was clinically and statistically significant difference (P = 0.029). Instantly detected RI during RP and intraoperative rectal repair resulted in no postoperative complication. Among all 10 cases of RUF, 5 cases were successfully repaired by modified York–Mason procedure with dartos tissue flap interposition. No major complications were reported. Conclusions: Incidence of RI was 0.42% and intraoperative recognition of RI was a key to prevent the development of RUF. Modified York–Mason procedure with dartos tissue flap interposition was an effective treatment for RUF.
first_indexed 2024-04-10T09:23:06Z
format Article
id doaj.art-430534d2219c4396bc20a8cf5207e2dc
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0974-7796
0974-7834
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-10T09:23:06Z
publishDate 2023-01-01
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
record_format Article
series Urology Annals
spelling doaj.art-430534d2219c4396bc20a8cf5207e2dc2023-02-20T07:29:48ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsUrology Annals0974-77960974-78342023-01-01151313410.4103/ua.ua_179_21Management of rectal injury and rectourinary fistula from radical prostatectomyNuttaphon LuchaichanaPatkawat RamartObjective: This study aimed to demonstrate our management of rectal injury (RI) and rectourinary fistula (RUF) from radical prostatectomy (RP) and identify a possible factor that increased the chance of developing RUF. Materials and Methods: Between January 2011 and December 2019, a total of 14 cases of RI were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed, including preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative information. Results: In all 14 cases of RI, the average age at RP was 66.3 years (54–77). During the study period, 8 of 14 cases of RI occurred in our hospital, and the incidence of RI was 0.42%. RI was intraoperative recognition in 8 cases and delayed diagnosis in 6 cases. For immediate recognition, 4 of 8 cases were primarily repaired without developing RUF and did not require diverting colostomy and suprapubic cystostomy. RUF occurred in 10 cases including 4 cases of intraoperative recognition and all cases of delayed diagnosis. In a subgroup analysis of RI that occurred in our hospital, the timing for diagnosis was clinically and statistically significant difference (P = 0.029). Instantly detected RI during RP and intraoperative rectal repair resulted in no postoperative complication. Among all 10 cases of RUF, 5 cases were successfully repaired by modified York–Mason procedure with dartos tissue flap interposition. No major complications were reported. Conclusions: Incidence of RI was 0.42% and intraoperative recognition of RI was a key to prevent the development of RUF. Modified York–Mason procedure with dartos tissue flap interposition was an effective treatment for RUF.http://www.urologyannals.com/article.asp?issn=0974-7796;year=2023;volume=15;issue=1;spage=31;epage=34;aulast=Luchaichanaprostate cancerradical prostatectomyrectal injuryrectourinary fistula
spellingShingle Nuttaphon Luchaichana
Patkawat Ramart
Management of rectal injury and rectourinary fistula from radical prostatectomy
Urology Annals
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
rectal injury
rectourinary fistula
title Management of rectal injury and rectourinary fistula from radical prostatectomy
title_full Management of rectal injury and rectourinary fistula from radical prostatectomy
title_fullStr Management of rectal injury and rectourinary fistula from radical prostatectomy
title_full_unstemmed Management of rectal injury and rectourinary fistula from radical prostatectomy
title_short Management of rectal injury and rectourinary fistula from radical prostatectomy
title_sort management of rectal injury and rectourinary fistula from radical prostatectomy
topic prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
rectal injury
rectourinary fistula
url http://www.urologyannals.com/article.asp?issn=0974-7796;year=2023;volume=15;issue=1;spage=31;epage=34;aulast=Luchaichana
work_keys_str_mv AT nuttaphonluchaichana managementofrectalinjuryandrectourinaryfistulafromradicalprostatectomy
AT patkawatramart managementofrectalinjuryandrectourinaryfistulafromradicalprostatectomy