Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Transperineal repair of rectourethral fistula (RUF) following prostate cancer treatment with gracilis muscle flap interposition (GMFI) leads to favourable outcomes, but published data are still lacking, notably concerning functional aspects.
Objective: To assess surgical and functional outcomes of this treatment of RUF.
Design, Setting, And Participants: A retrospective study was conducted in two referral hospitals including 21 patients who underwent RUF transperineal repair with GMFI between 2008 and 2020.
Surgical Procedure: The standard vertical perineal approach is performed for fistula dissection. Bladder and rectal defects are closed separately. After dissection from its facia, the flap is harvested, preserving its pedicle; it is brought to the perineum and placed between the urethra and the rectum to fully cover the sutures.
Measurements: Fistula closure (clinical data and postoperative cystography), digestive stoma closure, and complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were reviewed. Functional results were assessed using the Urinary Symptom Profile (USP) questionnaire, anal incontinence St Mark's score, Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) score, and a nonvalidated Likert scale questionnaire assessing issues with lower extremity functionality.
Results And Limitations: The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 27 (8-47) mo. Fistula closure was successful for 20 patients (95% success). Digestive stoma was closed in 10/12 shunted patients (83%). Two (9%) Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3b complications were reported (one urinoma in a kidney transplant patient and one thigh haematoma evacuation). Eighteen patients (86%) completed the postoperative questionnaire; 11/18 (61%) had significant urinary incontinence. The mean (standard deviation) USP dysuria score was 1/9 (1.2), mean St Mark's score was 5/24 (5), mean POSAS score was 19/70 (11), mean lower extremity functionality score was 2/20 (4), and mean procedure patient satisfaction score was 9/10 (2). The retrospective design and limited number of patients are the main limitations.
Conclusions: The present study found an excellent success rate and low morbidity for RUF transperineal repair with GMFI. Functional outcomes were satisfactory despite a high urinary incontinence rate.
Patient Summary: We performed an analysis of the outcomes of perineal approach surgery with muscle interposition for closing abnormal communication between the bladder and the rectum after prostate cancer treatment. This surgical technique was found to be safe to perform and provides a high success rate, with patients being satisfied despite poor urinary continence outcomes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.09.017 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!