Continence Outcomes After Treatment of Recalcitrant Postprostatectomy Bladder Neck Contracture and Review of the Literature - 27/02/14
Abstract |
Objective |
To present our experience with 2-stage management for recalcitrant refractory bladder neck contracture (BNC) after radical prostatectomy.
Methods |
A 15-year retrospective medical record review was performed for patients referred for BNC using current procedural terminology code or by International Classification of Diseases - Ninth Revision code for bladder neck incision (BNI). Treatment consisted of deep cold-knife BNI, followed by cystoscopy at 3-4 months. If stable and healed, an artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) or male sling was placed depending on continence level. Recurrent BNC at 3 months was treated with a second BNI.
Results |
Sixty-three patients were referred with median (range) age of 66 (41-82) years, body mass index 30.1 (21.9-64.8) kg/m2, and follow-up of 11 (1-144) months. Seventeen (27%) underwent adjuvant radiation therapy. Of the 46 who had successful management of the BNC, 91.3% were satisfied with level of continence after BNI alone or with a single additional operation. Of the 33 who underwent AUS or sling, only 2 failures occurred: 1 ultimately required cystectomy after multiple urethral erosions, and 1 with mild incontinence was satisfied with a secondary sling procedure. Four patients progressed to permanent urinary diversion. Together, either BNI (n = 4) or the secondary incontinence procedure (n = 1) was not successful in a total of 5 patients and required permanent urinary diversion. Nine had concurrent severe membranous strictures with no coaptation of the external urethral sphincter and were treated with direct vision internal urethrotomy and AUS and were continent.
Conclusion |
This represents the largest known experience with BNC after radical prostatectomy. Patients can be managed with cold-knife incision, followed by AUS or sling, with 66% achieving continence.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests. |
|
Funding Support: Support for this research is through the Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation. It is not supported by any funding agencies or industry. |
Vol 83 - N° 3
P. 648-652 - mars 2014 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?