Article

Urological leaks after pelvic exenterations comparing formation of colonic and ileal conduits

ErasmusMC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
European journal of surgical oncology: the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology (Impact Factor: 2.89). 04/2012; 38(4):361-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.12.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to assess possible risk factors for urinary leakage of a newly formed urinary conduit after a partial or total pelvic exenteration.
An analysis was conducted from prospectively collected data of patients who underwent a pelvic exenteration with conduit formation for advanced and recurrent pelvic cancer.
Of 232 patients undergoing a pelvic exenteration, 74 (32%) had a conduit formed. Of these, 47 (64%) had an ileal conduit compared with 27 (36%) a colonic conduit. Twelve (16%) patients developed a leak, of which nine occurred within the first month. Factors associated with a conduit leak included involvement of R2 surgical margins (43%), the magnitude of the exenteration and a current cardiovascular medical history (27%). Leaks were not found to be associated with either radiotherapy or chemotherapy. The 30-day leak rate for ileal conduits was 17% (8/47) and 4% (1/27) for colonic conduits with enterocutaneous fistula only occurring in the ileal conduit group (2/47). Fistula, drained collections and sepsis occurred in 40% of ileal and 19% of colonic conduits (p < 0.01). Patients with a conduit leak had a longer length of stay (59 versus 23 days, p < 0.001).
Urine leaks after conduit formation in association with exenterations are relatively common with a prolonged length of hospital stay. Positive surgical margins and exenterations involving all four quadrants of the pelvis were associated with higher leak rates. There was no evidence of a difference between ileal and colonic conduits and number of leaks. However colonic conduits had less total complications including sepsis, leak and pelvic collections with comparatively no complications of a small bowel fistula.

0 Followers
 · 
139 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Für den Erhalt der Nierenfunktion nach Harnableitungsoperationen unter Verwendung von Darm ist eine sorgfältig durchgeführte ureterointestinale Anastomose von entscheidender Bedeutung. Während beim Ileumconduit die Harnleiterdarmanastomose ohne Refluxschutz erfolgt, wird für orthotope oder heterotope kontinente Reservoirs noch kontrovers diskutiert, ob die Harnleiterdarmanastomose refluxiv oder antirefluxiv durchgeführt werden soll. Die häufigsten refluxiven und antirefluxiven Ureterimplantationstechniken, deren Indikationen, mögliche peri- und postoperative Komplikationen und deren Management werden vorgestellt. Dilatierte oder vorbestrahlte Harnleiter haben eine höhere Komplikationsrate an der Harnleiterdarmanastomose und neigen postoperativ zur Harntransportstörung. Bei Implantationsstenosen erzielt eine frühzeitige offen operative Revision und Neueinpflanzung der betroffenen ureterorenalen Einheit im Vergleich zu interventionellen endoskopischen Verfahren die besseren Ergebnisse. Da es auch nach 15 Jahren noch zu Stenosen der Harnleiterdarmanastomose kommen kann, ist ein ausreichend langer und regelmäßiger Follow-up inklusive Sonographie zum Nachweis einer Harntransportstörung notwendig. Bei sonographisch nachgewiesener Harntraktdilatation, bedarf es nuklearmedizinischer Untersuchungsverfahren (MAG-III-Clearance und DMSA-Scan) urodynamisch relevante korrekturbedürftige Harntransportstörungen von solchen, die lediglich einer Kontrolle bedürfen, zu diskriminieren. Sie liefern wichtige Informationen zur seitengetrennten Nierenfunktion oder dem Vorhandensein von Parenchymnarben.
    Der Urologe 07/2012; 51(7). DOI:10.1007/s00120-012-2909-3 · 0.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A well-functioning uretero-intestinal anastomosis is essential for the preservation of kidney function following urinary diversion using bowel segments. In incontinent forms of urinary diversions, such as ileal conduits, the ureters are usually implanted in a refluxive manner, whereas there is still controversy about the ideal implantation technique in continent orthotopic or heterotopic reservoirs (i.e. refluxive versus anti-refluxive). Current techniques of refluxive and antirefluxive uretero-intestinal anastomosis, their indications, typical perioperative and postoperative complications and management are discussed. Irradiated or preoperatively dilated ureters show a higher complication rate in terms of postoperative dilatation and obstruction. Early revision of the implantation site and ureteral reimplantation yield more favorable outcomes and long-term results than a minor invasive endourological treatment. As ureteral stenosis may occur more than 15 years after urinary diversion, regular follow-up including sonographic evaluation of the upper urinary tract to detect hydronephrosis is mandatory. In this setting a diuretic renogram with MAG-III is a helpful tool to determine split renal function and to discriminate urodynamic relevant dilatation of the upper urinary tract from clinical situations requiring only observation, while dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scans provide valuable information about renal scarring.
    Der Urologe 07/2012; 51(7):956-64. · 0.44 Impact Factor
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 01/2013; 56(1):4-5. DOI:10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182741a93 · 3.20 Impact Factor
Show more