Abstract
Purpose
To predict the outcome of redo-urethroplasty after failed single or multiple open urethral procedures for pelvic fracture urethral distraction defects.
Methods
From January 1997 to December 2006, 43 patients underwent redo-urethroplasty for pelvic fracture urethral distraction defect. Forty-one were referred from other centers. All had undergone open surgery along with an endoscopic procedure (one or more procedures in each patient) which included endoscopic internal urethrotomy, urethral stenting or urethral dilations.
Results
There were 43 men with mean age of 29 (range 11–52). Eleven had associated injuries: intraperitoneal bladder rupture (3), bladder neck (2), rectum (3), anal sphincter (2), combined bladder, rectum and anal sphincter (1). Trocar suprapubic cystostomy was performed in 22, rail-road procedures in 10 and open suprapubic cystostomy in 11 along with the management of associated injuries as immediate treatment. Of 43 patients, 28 had progressive perineal, and 12 had transpubic repair. Three patients had total bulbar necrosis, and they underwent prepuceal tube reconstruction (1) and staged substitution with BMG and standard scrotal inlay (2). Analysis of various factors like number of attempts at previous surgery and stricture length did not affect the outcome. A successful result was achieved in 36 (83.72%), improved and stable in five and failure in two.
Conclusions
The overall result of redo-urethroplasty for pelvic fracture urethral distraction defect continues to be gratifying. Failures happen usually within the first 3 months. Substitution urethroplasty can be reserved for those who have long distraction defect. Long-term follow-up is essential using stringent criteria to measure success.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Koraitim MM (1995) The lessons of 145 posttraumatic posterior urethral strictures treated in 17 years. J Urol 153:63–66
Andrich DE, Dunglison N, Greenwell TJ, Mundy AR (2003) The long-term results of urethroplasty. J Urol 170:90
Corriere JN Jr (2001) 1-stage delayed bulboprostatic anastomotic repair of posterior urethral rupture: 60 patients with 1-year follow-up. J Urol 165:404
Morey AF, McAninch JW (1997) Reconstruction of posterior urethral disruption injuries: outcome analysis in 82 patients. J Urol 157:506
Netto NR Jr, Lemos GC, Claro JF (1989) Internal urethrotomy as a complementary method after urethroplasties for posterior urethral stenosis. J Urol 141:50
Turner-Warwick R (1989) Prevention of complications resulting from pelvic fracture urethral injuries—and from their surgical management. Urol Clin North Am 16:335
Webster GD, Ramon J (1991) Repair of pelvic fracture posterior urethral defects using an elaborated perineal approach: experience with 74 cases. J Urol 145:744
Mundy AR (1998) Transperineal bulbo-prostatic anastomotic urethroplasty. World J Urol 16:164–170
Kumar S, Sinha M, Kekre NS, Gopalakrishnan G (2006) Use of pedicled tunica vaginalis flap in elaborated perineal approach for bulboprostatic anastomotic urethroplasty. Urology 67(1):187–189
Gupta G, Kumar S, Kekre NS, Gopalakrishnan G (2008) Surgical management of rectourethral fistula. Urology 71:267–271
Martinez-Pineiro JA, Carcamo P, Garcia Matres MJ, Martinez-Pineiro L, Iglesias IR, Rodriguez Ledesma JM (1997) Escisión and anastomotic repair for urethral stricture disease: experience with 150 cases. Eur Urol 32:433–441
Culty T, Boccon-Gibod L (2007) Anastomotic urethroplasty for posttraumatic urethral stricture: previous urethral manipulation has a negative impact on the final outcome. J Urol 177:1374–1377
Koraitim MM (2003) Failed posterior urethroplasty: lessons learned. Urology 62:719–722
Conflict of interest statement
There is no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bhagat, S.K., Gopalakrishnan, G., Kumar, S. et al. Redo-urethroplasty in pelvic fracture urethral distraction defect: an audit. World J Urol 29, 97–101 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0524-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-010-0524-8