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.

Proof of concept: Exposing the myth of urethral atrophy after artificial urinary sphincter via assessment of circumferential recovery after capsulotomy and intraoperative pressure profiling of the pressure regulating balloon.

Purpose: Rate of continence after artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement appears to decline with time. After appropriate workup to exclude inadvertent device deactivation, development of urge or overflow incontinence, and fluid loss, many assume recurrent stress urinary incontinence (rSUI) to be secondary to nonmechanical failure, asserting urethral atrophy as the etiology. We aimed to characterize the extent of circumferential urethral recovery following capsulotomy and that of pressure regulating balloon (PRB) material fatigue in men undergoing AUS revision for rSUI. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of a single surgeon database was performed. Cases of AUS removal/replacement for rSUI involving ventral subcuff capsulotomy and intraoperative PRB pressure profile assessments were identified. Results: The described operative approach involving capsulotomy was applied in 7 patients from November 2015 to September 2017. Mean patient age was 75 years. Mean time between AUS placement and revision was 103 months. Urethral circumference increased in all patients after capsulotomy (mean increase 1.1 cm; range 0.5-2.5 cm). Cuff size increased, remained the same, and decreased in 2, 3, and 2 patients, respectively. Six of 7 patients underwent PRB interrogation. Four of these 6 PRBs (66.7%) demonstrated pressures in a category below the reported range of the original manufacturer rating. Conclusions: Despite visual appearance to suggest urethral atrophy, subcuff capsulotomy results in increased urethral circumference in all patients. Furthermore, intraoperative PRB profiling demonstrates material fatigue. Future multicenter efforts are warranted to determine if capsulotomy, with or without PRB replacement, may simplify surgical management of rSUI with reductions in cost and/or morbidity.

A new material to prevent urethral damage after implantation of artificial devices: an experimental study

ABSTRACT Objective To validate the application of the bacterial cellulose (BC) membrane as a protecting barrier to the urethra. Materials and Methods Forty female Wistar rats (four groups of 10): Group 1 (sham), the urethra was dissected as in previous groups and nothing applied around; Group 2, received a 0.7cm strip of the BC applied around the urethra just below the bladder neck; Group 3, received a silicon strip with the same dimensions as in group 2; Group 4, had a combination of 2 and 3 groups being the silicon strip applied over the cellulosic material. Half of the animals in each group were killed at 4 and 8 months. Bladder and urethra were fixed in formalin for histological analysis. Results Inflammatory infiltrates were more intense at 4 months at lymphonodes (80% Grade 2), statistically different in the group 2 compared with groups 1 (p=0.0044) and 3 (p=0.0154). At 8 months, all samples were classified as grade 1 indicating a less intense inflammatory reaction in all groups. In group 2, at 8 months, there was a reduction in epithelial thickness (30±1μm) when com-pared to groups 1 (p=0.0001) and 3 (p<0.0001). Angiogenesis was present in groups 2 and 4 and absent in group 3. In BC implant, at 4 and 8 months, it was significant when comparing groups 4 with 1 (p=0.0159). Conclusion BC membrane was well integrated to the urethral wall promoting tissue remodeling and strengthening based on morphometric and histological results and may be a future option to prevent urethral damage.

Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery.

BACKGROUND: Incontinence after prostatectomy for benign or malignant disease is a well-known and often a feared outcome. Although small degrees of incidental incontinence may go virtually unnoticed, larger degrees of incontinence can have a major impact on a man's quality of life.Conceptually, post-prostatectomy incontinence may be caused by sphincter malfunction or bladder dysfunction, or both. Most men with post-prostatectomy incontinence (60% to 100%) have stress urinary incontinence, which is involuntary urinary leakage on effort or exertion, or on sneezing or coughing. This may be due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency and may be treated with surgery for optimal management of incontinence. Detrusor dysfunction is more common after surgery for benign prostatic disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of surgical treatment for urinary incontinence related to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery for:- men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) - transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), photo vaporisation of the prostate, laser enucleation of the prostate or open prostatectomy - and- men with prostate cancer - radical prostatectomy (retropubic, perineal, laparoscopic, or robotic). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 31 March 2014); MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2014); EMBASE (January 1988 to April 2014); and LILACS (January 1982 to April 2014). We handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. We contacted investigators to locate studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that include surgical treatments of urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality of papers, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study with 45 participants met the inclusion criteria. Men were divided in two sub-groups (minimal or total incontinence) and each group was randomised to artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) implantation or Macroplastique injection. Follow-up ranged from six to 120 months. In the trial as a whole, the men treated with AUS were more likely to be dry (18/20, 82%) than those who had the injectable treatment (11/23, 46%) (odds ratio (OR) 5.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 25.10). However, this effect was only statistically significant for the men with more severe ('total') incontinence (OR 8.89, 95% CI 1.40 to 56.57) and the CIs were wide. There were more severe complications in the group undergoing AUS, and the costs were higher. AUS implantation was complicated in 5/22 (23%) men: the implant had to be removed from one man because of infection and in one man due to the erosion of the cuff, in one man the pump was changed due to mechanical failure, in one man there was migration to the intraperitoneal region, and one man experienced scrotal erosion. In the injectable group, 3/23 (13%) men had a complication: one man treated with Macroplastique injection had to be catheterised because of urinary retention and two men developed urinary tract infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence available at present was of very low quality because we identified only one small randomised clinical trial. Although the result was favourable for the implantation of AUS in the group with severe incontinence, this result should be considered with caution due to the small sample size and uncertain methodological quality of the study found.

Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery.

BACKGROUND: Incontinence after prostatectomy for benign or malignant disease is a well known and often a feared outcome. Although small degrees of incidental incontinence may go virtually unnoticed, larger degrees of incontinence can have a major impact on a man's quality of life.Conceptually, postprostatectomy incontinence may be caused by sphincter malfunction and/or bladder dysfunction. The majority of men with post-prostatectomy incontinence (60 to 100%) have stress urinary incontinence, which is the complaint of involuntary urinary leakage on effort or exertion, or on sneezing or coughing. This may be due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency and may be treated with surgery for optimal management of incontinence. Detrusor dysfunction is more common after surgery for benign prostatic disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of surgical treatment for urinary incontinence related to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery for either benign LUTS secondary to BPH (transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), photo vaporization of the prostate, laser enucleation of the prostate and open prostatectomy) or radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (retropubic, perineal, laparoscopic, or robotic). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 28 June 2010), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2010), EMBASE (January 1988 to January 2010), LILACS (January 1982 to January 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted investigators to locate studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that include surgical treatments of urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality of papers and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study with 45 participants met the inclusion criteria. Men were divided in two subgroups (minimal or total incontinence) and each group was randomized to artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) implantation or Macroplastique injection. Follow-up ranged from six to 120 months. In the trial as a whole, the men treated with AUS were more likely to be dry (18/20, 82%) than those who had the injectable treatment (11/23, 46%) (OR 5.67, 95% CI 1.28 to 25.10). However, this effect was only statistically significant for the men with more severe ('total') incontinence (OR 8.89, 95% CI 1.40 to 56.57) and the confidence intervals were wide. There were more severe complications in the group undergoing AUS, and the costs were higher. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence available at present is limited because only one small randomised clinical trial was identified. Although the result is favourable for the implantation of AUS in the group with severe incontinence, this result should be considered with caution due to the small sample size and uncertain methodological quality of the study found.

[Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. Urinary artificial sphinter]. / Incontinencia urinaria post-prostatectomía. El esfinter artificial.

Urinary artificial sphincter (UAS) is currently the gold standard treatment for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. 5-25% of the patients under-going radical prostatectomy develop urinary incontinence. This complication generates important deterioration in the quality of life of these patients. Conservative and minimally invasive treatments, such as Kegel exercises, use of pads, drugs, and electrostimulation, or minor surgery have been used without success. This review summarizes the advantages and complications of the urinary artificial sphincter and its efficacy in the management of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy.