Vol. 45 (2): 253-261, March – April, 2019
doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2017.0681
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Carlos Roberto Giúdice 1, Patricio Esteban Lodi 1, Ana Milena Olivares 1, Ignacio Pablo Tobia 1, Gabriel Andrés Favre 1
1 Department of Urology, Reconstructive Surgery Area, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Argentina
ABSTRACT
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.
Keywords: Erectile Dysfunction; Prostatectomy; Urinary Incontinence
