Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Synchronous Urethral Repair During Prosthetic Surgery: Safety of Planned and Damage Control Approaches Using Suprapubic Tube Urinary Diversion. | LitMetric
Background: Urethral injury during inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) or artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement is rare, and traditionally most prosthetic surgeons abort prosthetic implantation when urethral repair is necessary.
Aim: To report our experience with synchronous urethroplasty (SU) as a planned or damage control surgery during urologic prosthetic surgery, to evaluate the safety and outcomes of the procedure.
Methods: A retrospective review of our IPP and AUS database was completed to identify patients who underwent an SU between 2007 and 2018. We included patients who underwent an SU during prosthetic surgery in either a planned procedure for known stricture or diverticulum or a "damage control" procedure after intraoperative injury.
Outcome: Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were assessed, with success defined as the absence of urethral stricture and revision surgery.
Results: From our database of 1,508 prosthetic cases, we identified 7 patients (0.46%) who had an SU in the same setting as complete prosthesis placement (4 AUS and 3 IPP [1 combined IPP/AUS], and 1 sling). Three patients underwent planned repair of a known urethral abnormality (urethral diverticulum, urethrocutaneous fistula, and urethral stricture), and 4 underwent repair of an intraoperative urethral injury. Among the patients who experienced an intraoperative urethral injury, contributing etiologies included previous anti-incontinence surgery with periurethral fibrosis (n = 2), severe corporal fibrosis from priapism, and previous urethral disruption from pelvic fracture. Nearly all of the urethroplasties (6 of 7; 86%) were completed with a primary closure. The average indwelling duration of suprapubic tube (SPT) catheters was 4.1 weeks (range, 7 to 47 days). The average duration of follow-up was 21.5 months, and all patients were continent at follow-up. No device infections or urethral complications were identified.
Clinical Implications: Our study illustrates the safety of concomitant urethral repair at time of prosthetic placement as an option to avoid the use of 2 anesthetics and prevent further scarring in high-risk patients.
Strengths & Limitations: This is the first study to address definitive urethral reconstruction during anti-incontinence procedures along with planned concomitant urethroplasty during IPP placement. This promising initial experience is relevant for surgeons who may encounter concomitant urethral pathology in the setting of complex reoperative prosthetic cases. The need for SU is rare, and thus our cohort size was limited in this retrospective, single-institution experience.
Conclusion: SU with prolonged SPT urinary diversion offers a safe damage control approach for men with concomitant urethral pathology during prosthetic surgery without conferring an increased risk of infection or stricture. Yi YA, Fuchs JS, Davenport MT, et al. Synchronous Urethral Repair During Prosthetic Surgery: Safety of Planned and Damage Control Approaches Using Suprapubic Tube Urinary Diversion. J Sex Med 2019;16:1106-1110.
