Article

All you need to know about urethrovesical anastomotic urinary leakage following radical prostatectomy.

Department of Urology, Athens University Medical School, Laiko Hospital, Athens, Greece.
The Journal of urology (Impact Factor: 3.75). 06/2012; 188(2):369-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.03.126
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Radical prostatectomy is a challenging operation demanding a high level of surgical expertise and experience. Urinary leakage at the urethrovesical anastomosis is one of the most common short-term complications of radical prostatectomy, reaching an incidence of 0.3% to 15.4%. In this review we investigate and discuss all matters directly related to urethrovesical anastomotic leak, specifically how to diagnose it properly, how to determine when it is clinically significant and when intervention is required, how to prevent or predict it and, finally, the possible long-term sequelae.
We conducted a systematic analysis of the literature searching for English and nonEnglish language publications from a preidentified time frame (1985 to 2011) using primary search databases (PubMed®, Web of Science®). Manual selection was performed by 2 authors and the third reviewed the final common selection. We also created an algorithm for the diagnosis and management of urethrovesical anastomotic leak.
A total of 72 studies were finally selected, including 48 (67%) observational case series, 16 (22.2%) prospective trials, 1 letter to the editor, 1 review and 1 systematic review which was focused only on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We also found 2 experimental studies performed in animal models and 3 case reports. Of these studies 7 reported results from fewer than 20 patients. No consensus was recorded on a strict definition of urethrovesical anastomotic leak. The factors determining possible definitions included postoperative day of urethrovesical anastomotic leak, amount of extravasation on cystography and the need for intervention. Urethrovesical anastomotic leak should be classified according to the Clavien classification system, depending on severity and the need for intervention. To our knowledge the role of the open, laparoscopic or robotic approach in the incidence of urethrovesical anastomotic leak has not been systematically investigated. Risk factors for urethrovesical anastomotic leak include obesity, prostate size, previous prostatic surgery, type of anastomosis technique, suture number and type, eversion of the mucosa, a difficult anastomosis or an anastomosis under tension, reconstruction of the musculofascial plate, blood loss, intraoperative flush test result and postoperative urinary tract infection. Diagnosis can be determined primarily by establishing the nature of the drain output. Retrograde cystography, computerized tomography cystography, transrectal ultrasound, contrast enhanced ultrasound and excretory urography are the indicated imaging modalities, and are not always necessary. Finally, the development of anastomotic stricture and incontinence due to urethrovesical anastomotic leak are additional complications.
We gathered all relevant critical information concerning urethrovesical anastomotic leak to encourage standardization in the diagnosis and management of this common complication. Systematic meta-analysis of each debatable issue is required to provide definite answers.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
411 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Vesico-urethral anastomosis (VUA) is a technically challenging step in robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in obese individuals. We describe technical modifications to facilitate VUA encountered in obese individuals and in patients with a narrow pelvis. A Pubmed literature search was performed between 2000 and 2012 to review all articles related to RALP, obesity and VUA for evaluation of technique, complications and outcomes of VUA in obese individuals. In addition to the technical modifications described in the literature, we describe our own experience to encounter the technical challenges induced by obesity and narrow pelvis. In obese patients, technical modifications like use of air seal trocar technology, steep Trendlenburg positioning, bariatric trocars, alterations in trocar placement, barbed suture and use of modified posterior reconstruction facilitate VUA in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. The dexterity of the robot and the technical modifications help to perform the VUA in challenging patients with lesser difficulty. The experience of the surgeon is a critical factor in outcomes in these technically challenging patients, and obese individuals are best avoided during the initial phase of the learning curve.
    Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India. 10/2014; 30(4):418-22.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies of complications resulting from surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer have mainly focused on incontinence and erectile dysfunction. We aimed to assess other important complications associated with these treatments for prostate cancer. We did a population-based retrospective cohort study, in which we used administrative hospital data, physician billing codes, and cancer registry data for men who underwent either surgery or radiotherapy alone for prostate cancer between 2002 and 2009 in Ontario, Canada. We measured the 5-year cumulative incidence of five treatment-related complication endpoints: hospital admissions; urological, rectal, or anal procedures; open surgical procedures; and secondary malignancies. In the 32 465 patients included in the study, the 5-year cumulative incidence of admission to hospital for a treatment-related complication was 22·2% (95% CI 21·7-22·7), but was 2·4% (2·2-2·6) for patients whose length of stay was longer than 1 day. The 5-year cumulative incidence of needing a urological procedure was 32·0% (95% CI 31·4-32·5), that of a rectal or anal procedure was 13·7% (13·3-14·1), and that of an open surgical procedure was 0·9% (0·8-1·1). The 5-year cumulative incidence of a second primary malignancy was 3·0% (2·6-3·5). These risks were significantly higher than were those of 32 465 matched controls with no history of prostate cancer. Older age and comorbidity at the time of index treatment were important predictors for a complication in all outcome categories, but the type of treatment received was the strongest predictor for complications. Patients who were given radiotherapy had higher incidence of complications for hospital admissions, rectal or anal procedures, open surgical procedures, and secondary malignancies at 5 years than did those who underwent surgery (adjusted hazard ratios 2·08-10·8, p<0·0001). However, the number of urological procedures was lower in the radiotherapy than in the surgery group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·63-0·69; p<0·0001) INTERPRETATION: Complications after prostate cancer treatment are frequent and dependent on age, comorbidity, and the type of treatment. Patients and physicians should be aware of these risks when choosing treatment for prostate cancer, and should balance them with the clinical effectiveness of each therapy. Ajmera Family Chair in Urologic Oncology.
    The Lancet Oncology 01/2014; · 25.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radical prostatectomy is the most common treatment for organ-confined prostate cancer. Performed without complications and limitations, surgery will allow complete removal of the tumor and, therefore, cure the patient. Operative techniques have been improved during the last few decades to reduce invasiveness of the procedure. Furthermore, optimized perioperative management has shortened hospital stay. To ensure rapid recovery of each patient, early detection of complications is highly relevant. Herein, different scenarios for peri- and postoperative complications are described, and recommendations for best practice solutions are reviewed.
    Der Urologe. Ausg. A. 07/2014; 53(7):976-83.

Full-text

Download
1,384 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014

Similar Publications