Treatment for rectourethral fistulas after radical prostatectomy with biological material interposition through a perineal access

INTRODUCTION

Rectal injury is a rare complication after extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The development of rectourethral fistulas (URF) from rectal injuries is one of the most feared and of more complex resolution in urology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 2013 and 2020 we have operated on a total of 5 patients with URF after extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy through a perineal access using the interposition of biological material. All fistulas had a diameter of less than 6 mm at endoscopy and were less than 6 cm apart from the anal margin.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 64 years old. All patients had a previous bowel and urinary diversion for at least 3 months. Under general anesthesia and with the patient in a forced lithotomy position, fistulorraphy and interposition of biological material of porcine origin (lyophilized porcine dermis [Permacol®]) were performed through a perineal access. Mean operative time was 174 min (140-210). Most patients were discharged on the third postoperative day. The bladder catheter was left in place for a mean of 40 days (30-60). Prior to its removal, cystography and a Gastrografin® barium enema were performed, showing resolution of the fistula in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The interposition of biological material from porcine dermis through perineal approach is a safe alternative with good results in patients submitted to urethrorectal fistulorraphy after radical prostatectomy.

Minimally invasive treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Our initial experience with Urolift® under local anaesthesia and sedation

INTRODUCTION

The treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia with the Urolift® system has been carried out since 2005 with good results in the medium term. In this work, we present our experience performing this technique under local anaesthesia and sedation in 2 Spanish centres.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study was conducted with 20 patients treated with Urolift® under local anaesthesia and sedation between April 2017 and April 2018. The anaesthesia protocol consisted in the placement of 2 lubricants with cold lidocaine (the first one, 10min before the intervention, and the second one, just before introducing the cystoscopy). A prostate block (similar to the one employed in prostate biopsies) was administered to one third of the patients and 1mg of intravenous midazolam was added if required during the procedure. Our primary objective is to evaluate the tolerability of this procedure under local anaesthesia using the validated Visual Analogue Scale measurement instrument.

RESULTS

The procedure has been performed under the same anaesthetic protocol to 20 patients from 2 different centres. The average pain scores on the Visual Analogue Scale were 1.37 for the cystoscopy procedure and 1.19 for the placement of the implants. When asked whether the pain sensations had been higher, lower or the same during the procedure or at the preoperative cystoscopy, only 18% of the patients responded it was higher. In all cases there was a good tolerance to the procedure, and changes to the anaesthesia protocols were never required.

CONCLUSIONS

We consider that the Urolift® system under local anaesthesia and sedation is a well-tolerated, safe and effective method for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia.