Open reconstruction of recurrent vesicourethral anastomotic stricture after radical prostatectomy

Management of the Devastated Bladder Outlet after Prostate CANCER Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Devastating complications of the bladder outlet resulting from prostate cancer treatments are relatively uncommon. However, the combination of the high incidence of prostate cancer and patient longevity after treatment have raised awareness of adverse outcomes deteriorating patients' quality of life. This narrative review discusses the diagnostic work-up and management options for bladder outlet obstruction resulting from prostate cancer treatments, including those that require urinary diversion.

RECENT FINDINGS

The devastated bladder outlet can be a consequence of the treatment of benign conditions, but more frequently from complications of pelvic cancer treatments. Regardless of etiology, the initial treatment ladder involves endoluminal options such as dilation and direct vision internal urethrotomy, with or without intralesional injection of anti-fibrotic agents. If these conservative strategies fail, surgical reconstruction should be considered. Although surgical reconstruction provides the best prospect of durable success, reconstructive procedures are also associated with serious complications. In the worst circumstances, such as prior radiotherapy, failed reconstruction, devastated bladder outlet with end-stage bladders, or patient's severe comorbidities, reconstruction may neither be realistic nor justified. Urinary diversion with or without cystectomy may be the best option for these patients. Thorough patient counseling before treatment selection is of utmost importance. Outcomes and repercussions on quality of life vary extensively with management options. Meticulous preoperative diagnostic evaluation is paramount in selecting the right treatment strategy for each individual patient. The risk of bladder outlet obstruction, and its severest form, devastated bladder outlet, after treatment of prostate cancer is not negligible, especially following radiation. Management includes endoluminal treatment, open or robot-assisted laparoscopic reconstruction, and urinary diversion in the worst circumstances, with varying success rates.

Summarizing the evidence for robotic-assisted bladder neck reconstruction: Systematic review of patency and incontinence outcomes

Objective

Bladder neck contracture and vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis are difficult to manage endoscopically, and open repair is associated with high rates of incontinence. In recent years, there have been increasing reports of robotic-assisted bladder neck reconstruction in the literature. However, existing studies are small, heterogeneous case series. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of robotic-assisted bladder neck reconstruction to better evaluate patency and incontinence outcomes.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of PubMed from first available date to May 2023 for all studies evaluating robotic-assisted reconstructive surgery of the bladder neck in adult men. Articles in non-English, author replies, editorials, pediatric-based studies, and reviews were excluded. Outcomes of interest were patency and incontinence rates, which were pooled when appropriate.

Results

After identifying 158 articles on initial search, we included only ten studies that fit all aforementioned criteria for robotic-assisted bladder neck reconstruction. All were case series published from March 2018 to March 2022 ranging from six to 32 men, with the median follow-up of 5-23 months. A total of 119 patients were included in our analysis. A variety of etiologies and surgical techniques were described. Patency rates ranged from 50% to 100%, and pooled patency was 80% (95/119). De novo incontinence rates ranged from 0% to 33%, and pooled incontinence was 17% (8/47). Our findings were limited by small sample sizes, relatively short follow-ups, and heterogeneity between studies.

Conclusion

Despite limitations, current available evidence suggests comparable patency outcomes and improved incontinence outcomes for robotic bladder neck reconstruction compared to open repair. Additional prospective studies with longer-term follow-ups are needed to confirm these findings.

Refractory Bladder Neck Contracture (BNC) After Radical Prostatectomy: Prevalence, Impact and Management Challenges

Bladder neck contracture is a recognised complication associated with radical prostatectomy. The management can be challenging, especially when refractory to initial intervention strategies. For the patient, the burden of disease is high and continence status cannot be overlooked. This review serves to provide an overview of the management of this recognised clinical pathology. Consideration needs to be given to minimally invasive approaches such as endoscopic incision, injectables, implantable devices as well as major reconstructive surgery where the condition persists. For the latter, this can involve open and robotic surgery as well as use of grafts and artificial sphincter surgery. These elements underline the need for a tailored and a patient centred approach.

Robotic-assisted Posterior Urethroplasty: Outcomes From 105 Men in a Single-center Experience

OBJECTIVE

To determine surgical outcomes in a large of cohort men undergoing robotic-assisted posterior urethroplasty (RPU), which has been described in small series as a viable option.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all 105 men who underwent RPU from October 2014 to August 2022 at a single institution. We evaluated postoperative outcomes, including complications; surgical success defined as no need for reintervention; and incontinence requiring artificial urinary sphincter placement. We performed descriptive statistics and chi-square testing to determine if outcomes were associated with certain posterior urethral disease etiologies.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up time was 18.7months. Over half of patients (57.1%) received prior pelvic radiation. The most common reconstructive techniques were excision and primary anastomosis (n = 45, 30.0%), resitting of the bladder neck (n = 26, 24.8%), Y-V plasty (n = 21, 20.0%), and buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty (n = 14, 13.3%). Forty-one patients (39.0%) required a combined abdominoperineal approach. Seven patients (6.7%) had ≥CD grade 3 complications within 30days. Thirty patients (28.6%) developed incontinence with subsequent artificial urinary sphincter placement. One-quarter (24.8%) of patients required at least one subsequent surgical reintervention.

CONCLUSION

In the largest RPU cohort to date, surgical success rates were similar and continence rates were improved compared to open surgery and align with existing robotic series, adding to the growing body of evidence demonstrating advantages of RPU.

Use of the Allium Round Posterior Stent for the Treatment of Recurrent Vesicourethral Anastomosis Stricture

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of monopolar incision and Allium Round Posterior Stent (RPS) insertion for the treatment of recurrent vesicourethral anastomosis stricture.

METHODS

Having a suprapubic catheter and an obstructed pattern with a peak flow rate (PFR) ≤12 mL/s on uroflowmetry were the indications for the surgery. Once the fibrotic vesicourethral anastomosis was incised, RPS was inserted at the level of vesicourethral anastomosis under fluoroscopic guidance. All the stents were removed at postoperative first year. Patients were evaluated 3months after stent removal. Objective cure was defined as no need to further treatments and PFR ≥12 mL/s while subjective cure was defined as having points <4 on Patient Global Impression of Improvements scale.

RESULTS

Of the 30 patients with a median age 66 (52-74) enrolled in the study, 18 had a suprapubic catheter, remaining 12 had median PFR 5.2 (2-10) mL/s. Stent migration was noted in two patients, these stents were replaced by new ones. Stone formation was diagnosed in one patient, a pneumatic-lithotripsy was performed. The median follow-up time was 28 (4-60) months following stent removal. Six cases needed further treatment after removal. The median PFR of remaining 24 patients was 20 (16-30) mL/s (P = .001). The objective cure rate was 24/30(80%), the Patient Global Impression of Improvements scores varied from 1 to 2, meaning subjective cure rate was 24/30(80%). For the six failed cases, according to patient preferences a lifetime RPS insertion was planned.

CONCLUSION

With its minimally invasive nature, reversibility, and acceptable success and complication rates, incision of anastomosis and insertion of the RPS for a 1-year duration is a promising option for the treatment of recurrent vesicourethral anastomosis stricture.

Robotic Simultaneous Repair of Rectovesical Fistula With Vesicourethral Anastomotic Stricture after Radical Prostatectomy: Step-by-Step Technique and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To report our experience and outcomes using a novel robotic technique for the simultaneous repair of rectovesical fistula (RVF) with vesicourethral anastomotic stricture (VUAS) after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

Between 2019 and 2021, four consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted simultaneous repair of RVF with concurrent VUAS after RP were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were examined and reported. Complications were graded using the modified Clavien-Dindo classification system and the European Association of Urology Complications Panel Assessment and Recommendations.

RESULTS

Four cases with a median age of 68.5 (63.3-72.3) years were treated. Interposition omentum flaps were used in all our cases. One case had perineal urethral mobilization to reach healthy urethral margins and tension-free vesicourethral anastomosis. Surgeries were uneventful, with no intraoperative complications reported. Median operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 370 (291.3-453) minutes, 255 (175-262.5) mL, and 2.5 (2-3) days, respectively. Median Jackson-Pratt drains, Double-J stents and Foley catheter removal days were 6 (6-10), 38 (32-43), and 30 (27-41) days, respectively. No postoperative complications were reported. The median follow-up time was 16.25 (12-26) months, and no fistula recurrence was shown.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic repair could represent an effective approach for the simultaneous repair of RVF with concomitant VUAS. More studies and management standardization are needed to assess the role of the robotic platform in the simultaneous repair of RVF with VUAS after radical prostatectomy.

Current evidence of robotic-assisted surgery use in functional reconstructive and neuro-urology

The use of robot-assisted technology has been widely adopted in urological oncological surgery and its benefits have been well established. In recent years, robotic technology has also been used in several functional reconstructive and neuro-urology (FRNU) procedures. The aim of this review was to evaluate the current evidence in the use of robotic technology in the field of FRNU. We performed a PubMed-based literature search between July and August 2022. The keywords we included were 'robotic assisted', 'ureteric reimplantation', 'cystoplasty', 'ileal conduit', 'neobladder', 'sacrocolpopexy', 'colposuspension', 'artificial urinary sphincter', 'genitourinary fistula' and 'posterior urethral stenoses'. We identified the latest available evidence in the use of robotic technology in specific FRNU procedures such as the reconstruction of the ureters, bladder and urinary sphincter, urinary diversion, and repair of genitourinary prolapse and fistula. We found that there is a lack of prospective studies to assess the robotic-assisted approach in the field of FRNU. Despite this, the advantages that robotic technology can bring to the field of FRNU are evident, including better ergonomics and visual field, less blood loss and shorter hospital stays. There is therefore a need for further prospective studies with larger patient numbers and longer follow-up periods to establish the reproducibility of these results and the long-term efficacy of the procedures, as well as the impact on patient outcomes. Common index procedures and a standardized approach to these procedures should be identified to enhance training.

Transperineal bulbovesical anastomosis for extensive posterior urethral stenoses after treatment of prostatic disease

OBJECTIVES

We report our surgical experience of transperineal bulbovesical anastomosis (BVA) for extensive posterior urethral stenosis (PUS).

METHODS

Six male patients who had extensive PUS extending from the bulbomembranous urethra to the bladder neck due to prostatic disease treatment and underwent transperineal BVA between 2014 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. BVA was performed according to the elaborate perineal approach for pelvic fracture urethral repair with minor modifications. After confirming the absence of recurrent stenosis 6 months postoperatively, the patients were offered artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement for subsequent urinary incontinence (UI).

RESULTS

Median patient age was 68, and the etiology of PUS was radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in four patients, brachytherapy for prostate cancer in one, and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia in one. All patients had been previously treated with multiple transurethral procedures such as urethrotomy and dilation. Median operative time and blood loss were 211 min and 154 ml, respectively. Five cases (83.3%) had no recurrent stenosis with a median follow-up of 45 months, but a single direct vision internal urethrotomy was performed in one (16.7%) due to restenosis. Four (66.7%) patients underwent AUS placement via transcorporal approach for subsequent UI, but two had it removed due to urethral erosion.

CONCLUSION

Transperineal BVA could effectively manage extensive PUS after prostatic disease treatment. Staged AUS placement could be a viable option for subsequent UI, but the risk of urethral erosion seemed high.

Transurethral Incisions for Bladder Neck Contracture: Comparable Results without Intralesional Injections

To present our 12-year experience using an endoscopic approach to manage bladder neck contracture (BNC) without adjunctive intralesional agents and compare it to published series not incorporating them, we retrospectively reviewed 123 patients treated for BNC from 2008 to 2020. All underwent 24 Fr balloon dilation followed by transurethral incision of BNC (TUIBNC) with deep incisions at 3 and 9 o'clock using a Collins knife without the use of intralesional injections. Success was defined as a patent bladder neck and 16 Fr cystoscope passage into the bladder two months later. Most with recurrent BNC underwent repeat TUIBNC. Success rates, demographics, and BNC characteristics were analyzed. The etiology of BNC in our cohort was most commonly radical prostatectomy with or without radiation (36/123, 29.3%, 40/123, 32.5%). Some had BNC treatment prior to referral (30/123, 24.4%). At 12-month follow-up, bladder neck patency was observed in 101/123 (82.1%) after one TUIBNC. An additional 15 patients (116/123, 94.3%) had success after two TUIBNCs. On univariate and multivariate analyses, ≥2 endoscopic treatments was the only factor associated with failure. TUIBNC via balloon dilation and deep bilateral incisions without the use of adjunctive intralesional injections has a high patency rate. History of two or more prior endoscopic procedures is associated with failure.

Robotic Urethral Reconstruction Outcomes in Men with Posterior Urethral Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate surgical outcomes stratified by posterior urethral obstruction (PUO) etiology in men undergoing definitive robotic posterior urethral reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective, single surgeon, review of men undergoing robotic posterior urethral reconstruction between 2018 and 2020 was performed. Differences in complications, reconstructive success (no further intervention), and urinary continence by PUO etiology were assessed.

RESULTS

Robotic posterior urethral reconstruction was performed in 21 men. PUO etiology included BPH treatment in 5 (24%), prostatectomy in 10 (48%), radiation in 5 (24%), and trauma in 1 (5%). Median number of prior endoscopic treatments was 3 (BPH), 3 (prostatectomy), and 2 (radiation) with an average time between obstruction and reconstruction of 9, 12, and 15 months (p=0.52). Median length of stay after reconstruction was 2, 1, and 2 days (p=0.45). 30-day complications occurred in 0%, 20%, 40% (p =0.19). Post-reconstruction re-intervention was necessary in 0%, 10%, 80% (p =0.004). Ultimately, anatomic success was achieved in 100%, 90%, 80% (p=0.63), with functional success rates of 100%, 100%, 60% (p=0.035). Median postoperative pad/day usage was 0,0, 10.5 (p<0.001), and ultimately 0%, 30%, 80% (p=0.013) underwent artificial urinary sphincter placement.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic treatment of posterior urethral obstruction (PUO) secondary to benign and malignant prostate conditions is associated with a high incidence of treatment failure. Robotic posterior urethral reconstruction is a safe and effective surgical solution for men with PUO in the absence of pelvic radiation. Men with pelvic radiation appear to be at increased risk of complications, PUO recurrence, and clinically significant stress urinary incontinence.

Devastated Bladder Outlet in Pelvic Cancer Survivors: Issues on Surgical Reconstruction and Quality of Life

Bladder outlet obstruction following treatment of pelvic cancer, predominantly prostate cancer, occurs in 1-8% of patients. The high incidence of prostate cancer combined with the long-life expectancy after treatment has increased concerns with cancer survivorship care. However, despite increased oncological cure rates, these adverse events do occur, compromising patients' quality of life. Non-traumatic obstruction of the posterior urethra and bladder neck include membranous and prostatic urethral stenosis and bladder neck stenosis (also known as contracture). The devastated bladder outlet can result from benign conditions, such as neurogenic dysfunction, trauma, iatrogenic causes, or more frequently from complications of oncologic treatment, such as prostate, bladder and rectum. Most posterior urethral stenoses may respond to endoluminal treatments such as dilatation, direct vision internal urethrotomy, and occasionally urethral stents. Although surgical reconstruction offers the best chance of durable success, these reconstructive options are fraught with severe complications and, therefore, are far from being ideal. In patients with prior RT, failed reconstruction, densely fibrotic and/or necrotic and calcified posterior urethra, refractory incontinence or severe comorbidities, reconstruction may not be either feasible or recommended. In these cases, urinary diversion with or without cystectomy is usually required. This review aims to discuss the diagnostic evaluation and treatment options for patients with bladder outlet obstruction with a special emphasis on patients unsuitable for reconstruction of the posterior urethra and requiring urinary diversion.

Single-Port Robotic Posterior Urethroplasty Using Buccal Mucosa Grafts: Technique and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To describe the technique, feasibility and short-term outcomes of buccal mucosa grafts in robotic lower urinary tract reconstruction.

METHODS

We reviewed 9 patients who underwent single-port robotic posterior urethroplasty with buccal mucosa graft from May-December 2019. Variables included patient demographics, diagnosis/etiology, and intraoperative parameters. Intraabdominal or extraperitoneal transvesical approaches are used for the stricture via supraumbilical access, and if necessary, perineal dissection is performed. Cystoscopy identifies the extent of stenosis. Anastomosis is completed with buccal mucosal graft and rectus abdominis, omental or gracilis flaps as needed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 65.4 years. Robotic urethroplasty with buccal mucosa graft was performed for vesicourethral anastomotic strictures (n = 7), urethral strictures (n = 4), pubic fistula after robotic posterior urethroplasty (n = 1), and anastomotic distraction (n = 1). Strictures occurred after prostate cancer treatments (n = 8) and trauma (n = 1). All patients had prior failed endoscopic interventions: balloon dilatation, resection/incision of bladder neck, internal urethrotomy under direct vision, urethral stents, and posterior urethroplasty. Mean defect length was 3.9 cm. Five of 9 patients had ancillary procedures including rectus abdominis (n = 3), omental or gracilis (both n = 1) flap harvests. No intraoperative complications occurred. Median operative time was 377 minutes, blood loss was 200 mL, and length of stay was 2 days. Postoperative 30-day complications included urinary tract infection, epididymitis, anemia, recurrent stricture, and small bowel obstruction requiring surgery (all n = 1). Median follow-up was 11.7 months.

CONCLUSION

Buccal mucosa grafts with ancillary maneuvers such as flap interposition or adjacent tissue transfer in robotic lower tract reconstruction is durable, safe, and comparable to open approaches.

Perineoscopic vesicourethral reconstruction: A novel surgical technique for anastomotic stricture following radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

Vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis (VUAS) is frequently seen after prostate surgery because of various operative and postoperative factors. In this study, we aimed to present our results of perineoscopic bladder neck reconstruction, which is a new technique of the perineal approach in the treatment of patients with VUAS after prostate cancer surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixteen consecutive patients who underwent perineoscopic bladder neck reconstruction in our clinic between July 2017 and March 2019 were included in the study. Demographic characteristics, surgical history, postoperative continence status, and additional treatment requirements were recorded. Perineoscopic surgery is defined as the visualization of the surgical site with instruments used in laparoscopy and the surgeon performing the entire operative procedure through the screen.

RESULTS

The mean number of preoperative endoscopic bladder neck resections of the patients was 7±5.1, with a history of suprapubic cystostomy in 7 (43.7%) and radiotherapy in 5 (31.2%) patients before surgery. The mean surgical time was 126.2±13.1 min. The mean follow-up period was 13.2±6.8 months, and the success rate was 81.25%. During follow-up, two (12.5%) patients received perineoscopic re-do reconstruction because of stricture recurrence, and one (6.2%) patient was included in a urethral dilatation program.

CONCLUSION

Improving visualization and ergonomics with the perineoscopic approach can increase the success rate of bladder neck reconstruction in comparison with the standard approach. In addition, the lack of need for expanded dissection (corporal separation, inferior pubectomy) reduces postoperative complication rates.

Durable Treatment of Refractory Vesicourethral Anastomotic Stenosis via Robotic-assisted Reconstruction: A Trauma and Urologic Reconstructive Network of Surgeons Study

BACKGROUND

Refractory vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis (VUAS) after radical prostatectomy poses challenges distinct from bladder neck contracture, due to close proximity to the sphincter mechanism. Open reconstruction is technically demanding, risking de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or recurrence.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate patency and continence outcomes of robotic-assisted VUAS repair.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with VUAS underwent robotic-assisted reconstruction from 2015 to 2020 in the Trauma and Urologic Reconstructive Network of Surgeons (TURNS) consortium of institutions. The minimum postoperative follow-up was 3 mo.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

The space of Retzius is dissected and fibrotic tissue at the vesicourethral anastomosis is excised. Reconstruction is performed with either a primary anastomotic or an anterior bladder flap-based technique.

MEASUREMENTS

Patency was defined as either the passage of a 17 French flexible cystoscope or a peak flow on uroflowmetry of >15 ml/s. De novo SUI was defined as either more than one pad per day or need for operative intervention.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 32 patients met the criteria, of whom 16 (50%) had a history of pelvic radiation. Intraoperatively, 15 (47%) patients had obliterative VUAS. The median length of hospital stay was 1 d. At a median follow-up of 12 mo, 24 (75%) patients had patent repairs and 26 (81%) were voiding per urethra. Of five men with 30-d complications, four were resolved conservatively (catheter obstruction and ileus). In eight patients, recurrent stenoses were managed with redo robotic reconstruction (in two), endoscopically (in four), or catheterization (in two). Of 13 patients without preexisting SUI, 11 (85%) remained continent at last follow-up. No patients underwent urinary diversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted VUAS reconstruction is a viable and successful management option for refractory anastomotic stenosis following radical prostatectomy. The robotic transabdominal approach demonstrates high patency and continence rates.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We studied the outcomes of robotic-assisted repair for vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis. Most patients, after the procedure, were able to void per urethra and preserve existing continence.

New perspectives on the surgical treatment of posterior urethral obstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Posterior urethral obstruction (PUO) from prostate surgery for benign and malignant conditions poses a significant reconstructive challenge. Endoscopic management demonstrates only modest success and often definitive reconstructive solutions are necessary to limit morbidity and firmly establish posterior urethral continuity. This often demands a combined abdominoperineal approach, pubic bone resection, and even sacrifice of the external urinary sphincter and anterior urethral blood supply. Recently, a robotic-assisted approach has been described. Enhanced instrument dexterity, magnified visualization, and adjunctive measures to assess tissue quality may enable the reconstructive surgeon to engage posterior strictures deep within the confines of the narrow male pelvis and optimize functional outcomes. The purpose of this review is to review the literature regarding endoscopic, open, and robotic management outcomes for the treatment of PUO, and provide an updated treatment algorithm based upon location and complexity of the stricture.

RECENT FINDINGS

Contingent upon etiology, small case series suggest that robotic bladder neck reconstruction has durable reconstructive outcomes with acceptable rates of incontinence in carefully selected patients.

SUMMARY

Initial reports suggest that robotic bladder neck reconstruction for recalcitrant PUO may offer novel reconstructive solutions and durable function outcomes in select patients.

The emerging role of robotics in upper and lower urinary tract reconstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Developments in robotic reconstructive urology have introduced novel treatments for complex upper and lower urinary tract disease. Short-term and mid-term data demonstrates excellent outcomes and minimal morbidity, suggesting the advanced instrumentation and visualization of robotics represent a new treatment paradigm in patients that are historically difficult to treat. Here we review recent developments in the robotically assisted surgical management of urethral and ureteral strictures.

RECENT FINDINGS

The minimally invasive approach, enhanced precision and reach, and near-infrared fluorescence imaging capabilities of robotic platforms have proven to be valuable additions in reconstructive urology where perfusion is often compromised, or anatomy is distorted. These benefits are leveraged heavily in recent descriptions of robotic-assisted posterior urethroplasty and ureteroplasty. Short-term to mid-term follow-up data for these procedures show excellent patency rates with low morbidity and complication rates when compared with open approaches. Long-term data for these procedures are not yet available.

SUMMARY

The role of robotics in reconstructive urology is being actively investigated. Initial findings demonstrate excellent results with low morbidity in the treatment of upper and lower urinary tract disease. Long-term data will ultimately determine the role of robotics in the reconstructive armamentarium.

Robotic-assisted genitourinary reconstruction: current state and future directions

With the widespread dissemination of robotic surgical platforms, pathology previously deemed insurmountable or challenging has been treated with reliable and replicable outcomes. The advantages of precise articulation for dissection and suturing, tremor reduction, three-dimensional magnified visualization, and minimally invasive trocar sites have allowed for the management of such diverse disease as recurrent or refractory bladder neck stenoses, and radiation-induced ureteral strictures, with excellent perioperative and functional outcomes. Intraoperative adjuncts such as near-infrared imaging aid in identification and preservation of healthy tissue. More recent developments include robotics via the single port platform, gender-affirming surgery, and multidisciplinary approaches to complex pelvic reconstruction. Here, we review the recent literature comprising developments in robotic-assisted genitourinary reconstruction, with a view towards emerging technologies and future trends in techniques.

[Urethro-vesical anastomosis reconstruction using extra-peritoneal robot-assisted laparoscopy for anastomotic stenosis after radical prostatectomy]

INTRODUCTION

Urethro-vesical anastomosis stenosis following radical prostatectomy is a rare complication but represents a challenging situation. While the first-line treatment is endoscopic, recurrences after urethrotomies require a radical approach. We present the updated results of our patient's cohort treated by pure robotic anastomosis refection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-center study focusing on one surgeon's experience. Patients presented an urethro-vesical stricture following a radical prostatectomy. Each patient received at least one endoscopic treatment. The procedure consisted of a circumferential resection of the stenosis, followed by a re-anastomosis with well-vascularized tissue. We reviewed the outcomes in terms of symptomatic recurrences and continence after the reconstructive surgery.

RESULTS

From April 2013 to May 2020, 8 patients underwent this procedure. Half of the patients had previously been treated with salvage radio-hormonotherapy. The median age was 70 years (64-76). The mean operative time was 109minutes (60-180) and blood loss was 120cc (50-250). One patient had an early postoperative complication, with vesico-pubic fistula. The average length of stay was 4.6 days (3-8). Mean follow-up was 24.25 months (1-66). Half of the patients experienced a recurrence at a median time of 8.25 months (6-11) after surgery. Five patients experienced incontinence of which 3 required an artificial urinary sphincter implantation.

CONCLUSION

Extra-peritoneal robot-assisted urethro-vesical reconstruction is feasible and safe to manage bladder neck stricture after radical prostatectomy. The risk of postoperative incontinence is high, justifying preoperative information.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Can we define reliable risk factors for anastomotic strictures following radical prostatectomy?

BACKGROUND

To identify risk factors for anastomotic strictures in patients after radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

In all, 140 prostate cancer patients with one or more postoperative anastomotic strictures after radical prostatectomy were included. All patients underwent transurethral anastomotic resection at the University Hospital of Munich between January 2009 and May 2016. Clinical data and follow-up information were retrieved from patients' records. Statistical analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier curves and log rank-test with time to first transurethral anastomotic resection as endpoint, Chi-square-test, and Mann-Whitney-U test.

RESULTS

In all, 140 patients with a median age of 67 years (IQR: 61-71 years) underwent radical prostatectomy. Median age at time of transurethral anastomotic resection was 68 years (IQR: 62-72). Patients needed 2 surgical interventions in median (range: 1-15). Median time from radical prostatectomy to transurethral anastomotic resection was 6 months (IQR: 3.9-17.4). Median duration of catheterization after radical prostatectomy was 10 days (IQR: 8-13). In all, 26% (36/140) received additional radiotherapy. Regarding time to first transurethral anastomotic resection, age and longer duration of catheterization after radical prostatectomy with a cutoff of 7 days showed no statistically significant differences (p = 0.392 and p = 0.141, respectively). Tumor stage was no predictor for development of anastomotic strictures (p = 0.892), and neither was prior adjuvant radiation (p = 0.162). Potential risk factors were compared between patients with up to 2 strictures (low-risk) and patients developing > 2 strictures (high-risk): high-risk patients had more often injection of cortisone during surgery (14% vs 0%, p < 0.001) and more frequently advanced tumor stage pT > 2 (54% vs 38%, p = 0.055), respectively. Other risk factors did not show any significant difference compared to number of prior transurethral anastomotic strictures.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not identify a reliable risk factor to predict development of anastomotic strictures following radical prostatectomy.

Robotic urethral reconstruction: redefining the paradigm of posterior urethroplasty

Outlet procedures for benign prostatic hypertrophy, prostate cancer therapy, and trauma can result in stenosis of the posterior urethra, a complex reconstructive problem that often fails conservative endoscopic management, necessitating more aggressive and definitive reconstructive solutions. This is typically done with an open technique which may require a combined abdominoperineal approach, pubectomy, and/or flap interposition. Implementation of a robot-assisted platform affords several potential advantages including smaller incisions, magnified field of vision, near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging to characterize tissue integrity, enhanced dexterity within the deep and narrow confines of the male pelvis, sparing of the perineal planes, and shorter convalescence. Herein, we describe important surgical considerations for robotic posterior urethral reconstruction.

Management of intractable bladder neck strictures following radical prostatectomy using the Memokath®045 stent

The incidence of vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis (VUAS) post radical prostatectomy varies from 1 to 26%. Current treatment can be challenging and includes a variety of different procedures. These range from endoscopic dilations to bladder neck reconstruction to urinary diversion. We investigated a 2-stage endoscopic treatment, using the thermo-expandable Memokath^®045 bladder neck stent to manage patients with VUAS post radical prostatectomy. We retrospectively reviewed 30 patients, between 2013 and 2017, who underwent a Memokath^®045 stent insertion following failed primary treatment (dilation and clean intermittent catheterisation) for VUAS. The mean interval time between prostatectomy and Memokath^®045 stent insertion was 13 months. The mean follow-up time was 3.6 years with all patients having a minimum of 12-month follow-up. All patients had two previous attempts at endoscopic dilatation with or without incision and a trial of clean intermittent catheterisation. During stage 1, the anastomotic stricture is dilated/incised to diameter of 30 Fr, the stricture length is measured, and a catheter is left in situ. One to 2 weeks later, post haemostasis and healing, an appropriately sized Memokath^®045 stent is inserted. The stent is then removed 1-year post-op. Our series of patients had a median age of 62 (54–72). Most patients (26) had a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or salvage procedure. Results showed improvement in IPSS scores, IPSS quality of life scores, Q_max and PVR after the Memokath^®045 stent was removed compared to pre-operation. With a minimum of 12 months post stent removal, 93% of patients were fully continent, whilst 7% of patients were socially continent. 2 (7%) patients had their stents removed and not replaced due to re-stricturing and stone formation. However, no urinary tract infections, stricture recurrence or urinary retention was observed in the rest of the cohort (93%). Overall, the Memokath^®045 stent was successful in treating 93% of our patients with VUAS. Our series had minimal complications that were managed with conservative measures and in three patients’ re-operation was needed. In conclusion, the Memokath^®045 stent is a minimally invasive technique with faster recovery time compared to other techniques such as bladder neck reconstruction or urinary diversion. Additionally, it provides superior patency results compared to other techniques such as bladder neck incision and injection of Mitomycin C. Therefore, this management option should be considered in the management of VUAS.

Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Vesicourethral Reconstruction to Manage Anastomotic Stricture Following Radical Prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the feasibility of robot-assisted vesicourethral reconstruction. Vesicourethral anastomotic stricture following radical prostatectomy is a real challenge for reconstructive surgery when facing several endoscopic management failures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a case series of robot-assisted vesicourethral reconstruction for anastomotic stricture failing endoscopic management. The procedure was performed with an extraperitoneal approach. The fibrotic anastomotic region was resected and a new vesicourethral running suture was performed with well-vascularized tissue. Bladder catheter was removed after 7 days.

RESULTS

Six procedures were performed from April 2013 to May 2018 at our department. One patient had a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at our department; the 5 others were referred from other institutions after receiving open prostatectomies. Three patients had salvage radiation therapy before reconstruction. Mean age was of 73.8 years (68-82). There was no peroperative complication. Mean operative time was of 108 minutes (60-180)], with a mean estimated blood loss of 130 mL (50-300). After surgery, 3 patients presented recurrences managed endoscopically without recurrence after 3, 5, and 11 months. Three patients presented incontinence treated with artificial sphincter implantation. One patient had no residual symptom after 5 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted vesicourethral reconstruction is a safe procedure. It is an option to consider when facing recurring anastomotic stricture following radical prostatectomy. It is an alternative to the perineal approach and an option before urinary diversion. Patients should be informed of the risks of incontinence and recurrence before surgery especially if they had radiation therapy.

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

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.

[Management of vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis after radical prostatectomy]

Vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis is a relatively uncommon problem after radical prostatectomy, but it could become recurrent and difficult to treat. Risk factors are known, and they can help to decrease the incidence. When discussing the therapeutic plan, we must consider the stenosis risk, and also the urinary continence after the prostatectomy. Many treatment schedules are proposed, some of them with low available evidence, limited to case series with different number of patient and follow-up length, or reviews on the subject. Endoscopic options are the commonest, obtaining different success rates depending on the incision, resection or vaporization of the tissue. They could also benefit from the use of adjuvant local injections of drugs regulating tissue growth. Recurrent or obliterated cases could require surgical reconstruction using perineal, abdominal or combined approaches, or even suprapubic urinary diversions.

Posterior urethral stenosis after prostate cancer treatment: contemporary options for definitive management

Posterior urethral stenosis (PUS) is an uncommon but challenging problem following prostate cancer therapy. A review of the recent literature on the prevalence of PUS and treatment modalities used in the last decade was performed. A summative narrative of current accepted techniques in management of PUS is presented, and supplement with our own experience and algorithms.

Patency and Incontinence Rates After Robotic Bladder Neck Reconstruction for Vesicourethral Anastomotic Stenosis and Recalcitrant Bladder Neck Contractures: The Trauma and Urologic Reconstructive Network of Surgeons Experience

OBJECTIVE

To review a robotic approach to recalcitrant bladder neck obstruction and to assess success and incontinence rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a recalcitrant bladder neck contracture or vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis who underwent robotic bladder neck reconstruction (RBNR) were identified. We reviewed patient demographics, medical history, etiology, previous endoscopic management, cystoscopic and symptomatic outcomes, urinary continence, and complications. Stricture success was anatomic and functional based upon atraumatic passage of a 17 Fr flexible cystoscope or uroflowmetry rate >15 ml/s. Incontinence was defined as the use of >1 pad per day or procedures for incontinence.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2017, 12 patients were identified who met study criteria and underwent RBNR. Etiology of obstruction was endoscopic prostate procedure in 7 and radical prostatectomy in 5. The mean operative time was 216 minutes (range 120-390 minutes), with a mean estimated blood loss of 85 cc (range 5-200 cc). Median length of stay was 1 day (range 1-5 days). Three of 12 patients had recurrence of obstruction for a 75% success rate. Additionally, 82% of patients without preoperative incontinence were continent with a median follow-up of 13.5 months (range 5-30 months). There was 1 Clavien IIIb complication of osteitis pubis and pubovesical fistula that required vesicopubic fistula repair with pubic bone debridement.

CONCLUSION

RBNR is a viable surgical option with high patency rates and favorable continence outcomes. This is in contrast to perineal reconstruction, which has high incontinence rates. If future incontinence procedures are needed, outcomes may be improved given lack of previous perineal dissection.

An update on best practice in the diagnosis and management of post-prostatectomy anastomotic strictures

Postprostatectomy vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis (VUAS) remains a challenging problem for both patient and urologist. Improved surgical techniques and perioperative identification and treatment of risk factors has led to a decline over the last several decades. High-level evidence to guide management is lacking, primarily relying on small retrospective studies and expert opinion. Endourologic therapies, including dilation and transurethral incision or resection with or without adjunct injection of scar modulators is considered first-line management. Recalcitrant VUAS requires surgical reconstruction of the vesicourethral anastomosis, and in poor surgical candidates, a chronic indwelling catheter or urinary diversion may be the only option. This review provides an update in the diagnosis and management of postprostatectomy VUAS.

Robotic-Assisted Abdomino-perineal Vesicourethral Anastomotic Reconstruction for 4.5 Centimeter Post-prostatectomy Stricture

We report surgical management of a disrupted radical prostatectomy vesicourethral anastomosis after bleeding from undiagnosed hemophilia that required re-exploration, pudendal artery embolization, and urinary diversion with nephrostomy and surgical drains. After referral, the 4.5 cm vesicourethral anastomotic defect was reconstructed with a robotic-assisted abdomino-perineal approach. Intra-abdominal robotic-assisted mobilization of the bladder and perineal mobilization of the urethra permitted a tension-free vesicourethral anastomosis while avoiding a pubectomy. Side docking of the Da Vinci Xi robot allows for simultaneous access to the perineum during pelvic minimally invasive surgery, enabling a novel approach to complex bladder neck reconstruction.

Male Urethral Stricture: American Urological Association Guideline

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of male urethral stricture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1990 to 12/1/2015) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of urethral stricture. The review yielded an evidence base of 250 articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. These publications were used to create the Guideline statements. Evidence-based statements of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendation were developed based on benefits and risks/burdens to patients. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinion when insufficient evidence existed.

RESULTS

The Panel identified the most common scenarios seen in clinical practice related to the treatment of urethral strictures. Guideline statements were developed to aid the clinician in optimal evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients presenting with urethral strictures.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful treatment of male urethral stricture requires selection of the appropriate endoscopic or surgical procedure based on anatomic location, length of stricture, and prior interventions. Routine use of imaging to assess stricture characteristics will be required to apply evidence based recommendations, which must be applied with consideration of patient preferences and personal goals. As scientific knowledge relevant to urethral stricture evolves and improves, the strategies presented here will be amended to remain consistent with the highest standards of clinical care.

Management of the devastated posterior urethra and bladder neck: refractory incontinence and stenosis

Stricture of the proximal urethra following treatment for prostate cancer occurs in an estimated 1-8% of patients. Following prostatectomy, urethral reconstruction is feasible in many patients. However, in those patients with prior radiation therapy (RT), failed reconstruction, refractory incontinence or multiple comorbidities, reconstruction may not be feasible. The purpose of this article is to review the evaluation and management options for patients who are not candidates for reconstruction of the posterior urethra and require urinary diversion. Patient evaluation should result in the decision whether reconstruction is feasible. In our experience, risk factors for failed reconstruction include prior radiation and multiple failed endoscopic treatments. Pre-operative cystoscopy is an essential part of the evaluations to identify tissue necrosis, dystrophic calcification, or tumor in the urethra, prostate and/or bladder. If urethral reconstruction is not feasible it is imperative to discuss options for urine diversion with the patient. Treatment options include simple catheter diversion, urethral ligation, and both bladder preserving and non-preserving diversion. Surgical management should address both the bladder and the bladder outlet. This can be accomplished from a perineal, abdominal or abdomino-perineal approach. The devastated bladder outlet is a challenging problem to treat. Typically, patients undergo multiple procedures in an attempt to restore urethral continuity and continence. For the small subset who fails reconstruction, urinary diversion provides a definitive, “end-stage” treatment resulting in improved quality of life.