Minimally Invasive Management of Post-treatment Rectovesical Fistulae.

Objective: The aim of this study is to report our experience in minimally invasive management of rectovesical fistulae (RVFs). Materials and Methods: Between 2004 and 2021, 24 patients who underwent minimally invasive RVF repair by a single surgeon at 3 international institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline demographic characteristics and perioperative and postoperative variables were collected. Complications were reported using the modified Clavien-Dindo Classification System and the European Association of Urology Complication Guidelines Panel Assessment and Recommendations. Fistula repair was defined as confirmation of fistula closure by imaging and complete resolution of fistula-related symptoms at the 12-month follow-up. Continuous variables are reported as medians and quartiles, whereas categorical variables are reported as frequencies and percentages. Results: Twenty-four patients with RVFs were treated: 22 males (91.7%) and 2 females with a median age of 66 (64.2-68) years. Twenty cases (83.3%) occurred postsurgery, three cases (12.5%) after surgery with combined radiotherapy, and one case (4.1%) after a combination of energy treatments. A robotic approach was performed in 19 patients (79%) and laparoscopic approach in 5 patients (21%). Ninety-six percent of patients had previous fecal diversions. No intraoperative complications were recorded. The median operative time was 180 (140-282) minutes, estimated blood loss was 50 (40-125) mL, and length of hospital stay was 2 (2-3) days. There were two Grade II complications and one Grade IIIb complication. All patients met criteria for repair. Conclusions: Minimally invasive management of RVFs is feasible. More studies are needed to assess the role of this approach among all RVF management options.

Minimally Invasive Management of Rectourethral Fistulae.

OBJECTIVE: To report our experience and outcomes in minimally invasive management of rectourethral fistula (RUF). METHODS: From 2004 to 2021, 15 patients who underwent minimally invasive RUF repair by a single surgeon at 2 international institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline demographic characteristics, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected. Complications were reported using the modified Clavien-Dindo Classification System and the European Association of Urology Complication Panel Assesment and Recommendations. Success was defined as complete resolution of fistula-related symptoms at 12-month follow-up along with confirmation of fistula closure by imaging or cystoscopy. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages whereas continuous variables were reported as median and quartiles. RESULTS: Fifteen male patients with a median age of 71 (64-79.2) years were treated. Four cases (26.6%) occurred postsurgery, 8 cases (53.3%) occurred after energy treatments, and 3 cases (20%) after surgery combined with an energy treatment modality. A robotic and laparoscopic approach was performed in 9 (60%) and 6 (40%) patients, respectively. No intraoperative complications were reported. Median operative time was 264 (217.5-341) minutes, estimated blood loss was 175 (137.5-200) mL, and the length of hospital stay was 4 days. Nine postoperative complications were reported. All patients were followed-up for 12 months with no recurrence reported. All patients reached our criteria for successful RUF repair. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery could represent an efficient way to manage RUF in selected patients. More studies and treatment standardization are needed to assess the role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of RUF.