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

Indications and Outcomes for Intermittent Catheterization following Bulbar AUS Cuff Placement

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the functional and surgical impact of CIC protocols in men with a bulbar AUS in place. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and poor bladder emptying are both sequelae of prostate cancer treatment, though there is sparse data to guide concomitant management. The safety of intermittent catheterization (CIC) in men with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) at the bulbar urethra remains unclear.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all bulbar urethral AUS procedures at our institution. Inclusion criteria were patients with a history of prostate cancer treatment, AUS placement for SUI, and a history of CIC before and/or after AUS placement. All eligible cases were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical and continence outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients were identified with a history of CIC and AUS placement under the care of two surgeons. Eighteen continued to perform CIC or first initiated CIC after AUS placement and 39 discontinued CIC prior to AUS placement. The incidence of erosion was no different amongst patients who continued or discontinued CIC after AUS placement (17.9% vs 22.2%, P = .79). There was no difference in future AUS removal or replacement (56.4% vs 44.4%, P = .41). Both groups experienced improvement in urinary incontinence after placement of an AUS.

CONCLUSION

Bulbar AUS placement in the setting of continuous intermittent catheterization can be considered in patients who are not surgical candidates for definitive treatment of their outlet obstruction.

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.

Treatment outcomes of bladder neck contractures from surgical clip erosion: a matched cohort comparison

Vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis (VUS) from surgical clip erosion after radical prostatectomy (RP) is a rare scenario with potentially significant quality of life implications. The literature is limited to case series, and the impact of clip erosion on VUS prognosis is not known. Years 2001 to 2012 of our institutional RP registry were queried for patients with symptomatic VUS without prior strictures or radiotherapy. Patients with clip-associated VUS (caVUS) were identified and compared to a 1:3 matched cohort (based on age, Gleason score, and year of surgery) of non-caVUS patients using descriptive statistics and time to event analyses. At a median follow-up of 54 months after RP, 243 men with symptomatic VUS were identified of which 21 (8.6%) were caVUS. Robotic RPs had a higher rate of caVUS (0.5%) vs. open RPs (0.06%), P<0.01. Patients with caVUS had longer time to diagnosis after RP compared to a matched cohort of 63 non-caVUS patients (median 9.2 vs. 3.7 months after RP, P<0.01). Although patients with caVUS had a higher VUS recurrence rate after endoscopic treatment compared to patients with non-caVUS, the difference was not statistically significant on log-rank comparison (3-year VUS recurrence rate 56.4% vs. 39.4%, P=0.23). Majority of VUS recurrences were within 18 months of initial treatment. Clip erosion is responsible for 8.6% of VUS after RP, takes longer to present than non-caVUS, and was seen more commonly after a robotic RP. VUS recurrence rates are similar for caVUS and non-caVUS.

Analysis of a 7-year national online audit of the management of open reconstructive urethral surgery in men

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an audit of the management of urethral pathology in men presenting for reconstructive urethral surgery in the UK.

METHODS

Between 1 June 2010 and 31 May 2017, data on men presenting with urethral pathologies requiring reconstruction were entered onto a secure online data platform. Surgeon-entered information was collected in 95 fields regarding the stricture aetiology, prior management, mode of presentation, type of surgery and outcomes, with a potential 283 variable responses in the 95 fields. Data were analysed to compare UK practice with that reported in the contemporary literature and with guidelines.

RESULTS

Data on 4809 men were entered by 39 centres and 50 surgeons. Field completeness was 70.7%, 74.3% and 53.7% for preoperative, operative and follow-up data, respectively. Referral for stricture reconstruction frequently followed two prior endoscopic procedures and the stricture was not always assessed anatomically before surgery. Urinary retention was a common symptom in men awaiting reconstruction. Short unifocal strictures of the anterior urethra were the commonest reason for referral, whilst lichen sclerosus and hypospadias generated a significant volume of revisional stricture surgery. Lower numbers of very complex interventions are required for the management of posterior urethral pathology. Although precise criteria for determining success are not clear, management of urethral reconstruction in the UK was found to have a low risk of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complications, and was associated with outcomes similar to those reported in contemporary series except in the management of posterior urethral fistulae.

CONCLUSIONS

Online databases can provide volume data on the management of reconstructive urethral surgery across a multiplicity of centres in one country. They can also indicate compliance with accepted standards of, and expected outcomes from, this tertiary practice.