Safety and effectiveness evaluation of open reanastomosis for obliterative or recalcitrant anastomotic stricture after radical retropubic prostatectomy

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Giúdice,Carlos Roberto
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Lodi,Patricio Esteban, Olivares,Ana Milena, Tobia,Ignacio Pablo, Favre,Gabriel Andrés
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200253
Resumo: ABSTRACT Purpose: To evaluate safety, efficacy and functional outcomes after open vesicourethral re - anastomosis using different approaches based on previous urinary continence. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study of patients treated from 2002 to 2017 due to vesicourethral anastomosis stricture (VUAS) post radical prostatectomy (RP) who failed endoscopic treatment with at least 3 months of follow-up. Continent and incontinent patients post RP were assigned to abdominal (AA) or perineal approach (PA), respectively. Demographic and perioperative variables were registered. Follow-up was completed with clinical interview, uroflowmetry and cystoscopy every 4 months. Success was defined as asymptomatic patients with urethral lumen that allows a 14 French flexible cystoscope. Results: Twenty patients underwent open re-anastomosis for VUAS after RP between 2002 and 2017. Mean age was 63.7 years (standard deviation 1.4) and median follow-up was 10 months (range 3 – 112). The approach distribution was PA 10 patients (50%) and AA 10 patients (50%). The mean surgery time and median hospital time were 246.2 ± 35.8 minutes and 4 days (range 2 – 10), respectively with no differences between approaches. No significant complication rate was found. Three patients in the AA group had gait disorder with favorable evolution and no sequels. Estimated 2 years primary success rate was 80%. After primary procedures 89.9% remained stenosis - free. All PA patients remained incontinent, and 90% AA remained continent during follow-up. Conclusion: Open vesicourethral re - anastomosis treatment is a reasonable treatment option for recurrent VUAS after RP. All patients with perineal approach remained incontinent while incontinence rate in abdominal approach was rather low.
id SBU-1_84a45998fbaf92472f52e54b8022c6c0
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382019000200253
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Safety and effectiveness evaluation of open reanastomosis for obliterative or recalcitrant anastomotic stricture after radical retropubic prostatectomyErectile DysfunctionProstatectomyUrinary IncontinenceABSTRACT Purpose: To evaluate safety, efficacy and functional outcomes after open vesicourethral re - anastomosis using different approaches based on previous urinary continence. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study of patients treated from 2002 to 2017 due to vesicourethral anastomosis stricture (VUAS) post radical prostatectomy (RP) who failed endoscopic treatment with at least 3 months of follow-up. Continent and incontinent patients post RP were assigned to abdominal (AA) or perineal approach (PA), respectively. Demographic and perioperative variables were registered. Follow-up was completed with clinical interview, uroflowmetry and cystoscopy every 4 months. Success was defined as asymptomatic patients with urethral lumen that allows a 14 French flexible cystoscope. Results: Twenty patients underwent open re-anastomosis for VUAS after RP between 2002 and 2017. Mean age was 63.7 years (standard deviation 1.4) and median follow-up was 10 months (range 3 – 112). The approach distribution was PA 10 patients (50%) and AA 10 patients (50%). The mean surgery time and median hospital time were 246.2 ± 35.8 minutes and 4 days (range 2 – 10), respectively with no differences between approaches. No significant complication rate was found. Three patients in the AA group had gait disorder with favorable evolution and no sequels. Estimated 2 years primary success rate was 80%. After primary procedures 89.9% remained stenosis - free. All PA patients remained incontinent, and 90% AA remained continent during follow-up. Conclusion: Open vesicourethral re - anastomosis treatment is a reasonable treatment option for recurrent VUAS after RP. All patients with perineal approach remained incontinent while incontinence rate in abdominal approach was rather low.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2019-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200253International braz j urol v.45 n.2 2019reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.0681info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGiúdice,Carlos RobertoLodi,Patricio EstebanOlivares,Ana MilenaTobia,Ignacio PabloFavre,Gabriel Andréseng2019-05-22T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382019000200253Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2019-05-22T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Safety and effectiveness evaluation of open reanastomosis for obliterative or recalcitrant anastomotic stricture after radical retropubic prostatectomy
title Safety and effectiveness evaluation of open reanastomosis for obliterative or recalcitrant anastomotic stricture after radical retropubic prostatectomy
spellingShingle Safety and effectiveness evaluation of open reanastomosis for obliterative or recalcitrant anastomotic stricture after radical retropubic prostatectomy
Giúdice,Carlos Roberto
Erectile Dysfunction
Prostatectomy
Urinary Incontinence
title_short Safety and effectiveness evaluation of open reanastomosis for obliterative or recalcitrant anastomotic stricture after radical retropubic prostatectomy
title_full Safety and effectiveness evaluation of open reanastomosis for obliterative or recalcitrant anastomotic stricture after radical retropubic prostatectomy
title_fullStr Safety and effectiveness evaluation of open reanastomosis for obliterative or recalcitrant anastomotic stricture after radical retropubic prostatectomy
title_full_unstemmed Safety and effectiveness evaluation of open reanastomosis for obliterative or recalcitrant anastomotic stricture after radical retropubic prostatectomy
title_sort Safety and effectiveness evaluation of open reanastomosis for obliterative or recalcitrant anastomotic stricture after radical retropubic prostatectomy
author Giúdice,Carlos Roberto
author_facet Giúdice,Carlos Roberto
Lodi,Patricio Esteban
Olivares,Ana Milena
Tobia,Ignacio Pablo
Favre,Gabriel Andrés
author_role author
author2 Lodi,Patricio Esteban
Olivares,Ana Milena
Tobia,Ignacio Pablo
Favre,Gabriel Andrés
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Giúdice,Carlos Roberto
Lodi,Patricio Esteban
Olivares,Ana Milena
Tobia,Ignacio Pablo
Favre,Gabriel Andrés
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Erectile Dysfunction
Prostatectomy
Urinary Incontinence
topic Erectile Dysfunction
Prostatectomy
Urinary Incontinence
description ABSTRACT Purpose: To evaluate safety, efficacy and functional outcomes after open vesicourethral re - anastomosis using different approaches based on previous urinary continence. Materials and Methods: Retrospective study of patients treated from 2002 to 2017 due to vesicourethral anastomosis stricture (VUAS) post radical prostatectomy (RP) who failed endoscopic treatment with at least 3 months of follow-up. Continent and incontinent patients post RP were assigned to abdominal (AA) or perineal approach (PA), respectively. Demographic and perioperative variables were registered. Follow-up was completed with clinical interview, uroflowmetry and cystoscopy every 4 months. Success was defined as asymptomatic patients with urethral lumen that allows a 14 French flexible cystoscope. Results: Twenty patients underwent open re-anastomosis for VUAS after RP between 2002 and 2017. Mean age was 63.7 years (standard deviation 1.4) and median follow-up was 10 months (range 3 – 112). The approach distribution was PA 10 patients (50%) and AA 10 patients (50%). The mean surgery time and median hospital time were 246.2 ± 35.8 minutes and 4 days (range 2 – 10), respectively with no differences between approaches. No significant complication rate was found. Three patients in the AA group had gait disorder with favorable evolution and no sequels. Estimated 2 years primary success rate was 80%. After primary procedures 89.9% remained stenosis - free. All PA patients remained incontinent, and 90% AA remained continent during follow-up. Conclusion: Open vesicourethral re - anastomosis treatment is a reasonable treatment option for recurrent VUAS after RP. All patients with perineal approach remained incontinent while incontinence rate in abdominal approach was rather low.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-04-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200253
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200253
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.0681
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.45 n.2 2019
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318076768813056