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: 4.47). 06/2012; 188(2):369-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.03.126
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Stavros I. Tyritzis,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radical prostatectomy is currently the standard of care for localized prostate cancer. In the last decade, the minimally invasive surgery, especially the robotic surgery has been growing and open techniques are less frequent performed. A non-systematic review of the literature is performed, highlighting the current situation of the perineal radical prostatectomy in the minimally invasive era, its indications, and functional and oncological outcomes. Radical perineal prostatectomy, when compared with other surgical approaches, still experience favorable outcomes. Urologist might be abandoning an underused surgical approach.
    Archivos españoles de urología 10/2012; 65(8):726-736. · 0.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: To develop an economical animal model for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) urethrovesical anastomosis (UVA) training. Materials and methods: A homemade single-port device was used and the uterus cervix and the ileum were chosen to simulate UVA to reduce costs. Ten trainees were randomly divided into two groups: the conventional LESS UVA (CLUVA) group and the transurethral assistant LESS UVA (TALUVA) group. In TALUVA, a laparoscopic forceps was inserted through the urethra to assist operation after the bladder neck was disconnected, whereas CLUVA followed the conventional steps. Anastomosis time and knotting time were recorded, and the learning curves of both groups were analyzed. After training, questionnaires were given to the trainees to assess the difficulties and the satisfaction of the training. Results: The final mean operating time significantly declined in both groups. Except for the first lesson, the trainees in the TALUVA group operated faster than those in the other group. The results from the questionnaires show that all trainees were satisfied with the training, and LESS UVA was considered more difficult in the CLUVA group than in the TALUVA group. Conclusions: The female porcine model for LESS UVA was feasible and cost-effective. TALVUA could effectively reduce the difficulties involved in LESS UVA.
    Urologia Internationalis 07/2013; 92(1). DOI:10.1159/000351003 · 1.43 Impact Factor
  • [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; 15(2). DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70606-5 · 24.69 Impact Factor
Show more