Skip to main content

Major Complications of Urologic Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The High-risk Surgical Patient

Abstract

Urological surgery encompasses open, laparoscopic, retroperitoneoscopic, and endoscopic procedures that concern andrology, oncology, urinary stones, pelvic organ prolapse, incontinence, and lower urinary tract symptoms. Grade III to V events, according to Clavien–Dindo classification, occur mainly in endoscopic, laparoscopic, retroperitoneoscopic, and open transabdominal surgery. The most dangerous surgical complications are acute bleeding, anastomosis leakage, urinary or intestinal fistulas, sepsis, excessive fluid absorption, and acute obstructive renal injury. Sometimes they may have a subtle insurgence, especially after endoscopic procedures, leading to late recognition with eventual catastrophic consequences. Prevention of major complications requires meticulous preoperative planning, whereas acknowledgement of symptoms or signs linked to complications is the key to an early diagnosis, which is imperative to limit ominous outcomes. The surgeon should be aware of preoperative conditions such as urinary infection, particularly if associated with the presence of a device (for example, urethral or ureteral catheters), previous complications from surgeries of the same kind, or certain medical disorders or therapies and the case should be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting if vascular, intestinal, or non-surgical complications are expected. After the procedure, patients should be monitored for uncommon events like hemodynamic instability, acute persisting pain, persisting postoperative ileus, postoperative onset of subcutaneous emphysema of the scrotum or the wound or the presence of gas in the collection bag of the drainage or the urinary stoma, high fever or severe malaise, impaired urinary output, abnormal color composition and characteristics of urine or fluid from drainage. Additional diagnostic tools may be necessary to confirm a suspected complication. Thereafter, prompt and tailored measures should be taken.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Schuettfort VM, Pradere B, Compérat E, Abufaraj M, Shariat SF. Novel transurethral resection technologies and training modalities in the management of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer: a comprehensive review. Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31(4):324–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Defidio L, Antonucci M, Castellani D, Civitella A, Esperto F, Scarpa RM. Transurethral resection of bladder tumor: electrosurgical and laser. J Endourol. 2021;35(S2):S46–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim LHC, Patel MI. Transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT). Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(6):3056–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)—incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol. 2006;50(5):969–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Arcaniolo D, Manfredi C, Veccia A, Herrmann TRW, Lima E, Mirone V, Fusco F, Fiori C, Antonelli A, Rassweiler J, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F, De Sio M, Autorino R, EAU Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) Research Group. Bipolar endoscopic enucleation versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate: an ESUT systematic review and cumulative analysis. World J Urol. 2020;38(5):1177–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yıldız A, Anıl H, Erol İ, Karamık K, Erçil H. Comparison of three different modalities for the treatment of bladder calculi by size. Urologia. 2022;89(3):413–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):475–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Somani BK, Giusti G, Sun Y, Osther PJ, Frank M, De Sio M, Turna B, de la Rosette J. Complications associated with ureterorenoscopy (URS) related to treatment of urolithiasis: the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society URS Global Study. World J Urol. 2017;35(4):675–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1909-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chugh S, Pietropaolo A, Montanari E, Sarica K, Somani BK. Predictors of urinary infections and urosepsis after ureteroscopy for stone disease: a systematic review from EAU Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS). Curr Urol Rep. 2020;21(4):16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bhaskarapprakash AR, Karri L, Velmurugan P, Venkatramanan S, Natarajan K. Ureteral avulsion during semirigid ureteroscopy: a single-centre experience. Surg Res Pract. 2020;2020:3198689.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Efthimiou I, Chousianitis Z, Skrepetis K. Troubleshooting for ureteroscopy complicated by unexpected guidewire looping and entrapment. J Endourol Case Rep. 2017;3(1):84–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu WZ, Huang T, Fang L, Cheng Y. Renal arteriovenous fistula after retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the lower ureteral stones: a rare case report. BMC Urol. 2020;20(1):123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Tiplitsky SI, Milhoua PM, Patel MB, Minsky L, Hoenig DM. Case report: intrarenal arteriovenous fistula after ureteroscopic stone extraction with holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2007;21(5):530–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Silva Simões Estrela JR, AzevedoZiomkowski A, Dauster B, Matos AC. Arteriocaliceal fistula: a life-threatening condition after retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Endourol Case Rep. 2020;6(3):241–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ. Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(4):899–906.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ritter M, Krombach P, Michel MS. Percutaneous stone removal. Eur Urol Suppl. 2011;10:433–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Seitz C, Desai M, Häcker A, Hakenberg OW, Liatsikos E, Nagele U, Tolley D. Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol. 2012;61(1):146–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vallancien G, Capdeville R, Veillon B, Charton M, Brisset JM. Colonic perforation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 1985;134(6):1185–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chang P, Wagner AA, Regan MM, Smith JA, Saigal CS, Litwin MS, Hu JC, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klein EA, Kibel AS, Andriole GL, Han M, Partin AW, Wood DP, Crociani CM, Greenfield TK, Patil D, Hembroff LA, Davis K, Stork L, Spratt DE, Wei JT, Sanda MG. Prospective multicenter comparison of open and robotic radical prostatectomy: the PROST-QA/RP2 consortium. J Urol. 2022;207(1):127–36. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU0000000000002176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sancı A, Özkaya MF, Oguz ES, Gokce Mİ, Süer E, Gülpinar O, Baltacı S, Turkolmez K. Perioperative adverse events and functional outcomes following open and robot-assisted prostatectomy in patients over age 70. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75:e14754.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Haese A, Knipper S, Isbarn H, Heinzer H, Tilki D, Salomon G, Michl U, Steuber T, Budäus L, Maurer T, Tennstedt P, Huland H, Graefen M. A comparative study of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in 10 790 men treated by highly trained surgeons for both procedures. BJU Int. 2019;123(6):1031–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fujisaki A, Takayama T, Yamazaki M, Komatsubara M, Kamei J, Sugihara T, Ando S, Fujimura T. Postoperative hemorrhagic shock 7 days after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol Case Rep. 2020;6(4):448–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Browne BM, Vanni AJ. Management of urethral stricture and bladder neck contracture following primary and salvage treatment of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18(10):76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Thomas C, Jones J, Jäger W, Hampel C, Thüroff JW, Gillitzer R. Incidence, clinical symptoms and management of rectourethral fistulas after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;183(2):608–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Naselli A, Andreatta R, Introini C, Fontana V, Puppo P. Predictors of symptomatic lymphocele after lymph node excision and radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2010;75(3):630–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Korkes F, Fernandes E, Gushiken FA, Glina FPA, Baccaglini W, Timóteo F, Glina S. Bricker ileal conduit vs. cutaneous ureterostomy after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review. Int Braz J Urol. 2021;48(1):18–30.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhou N, Tian F, Feng Y, Zhao K, Chen L, Fan R, Lu W, Gu C. Perioperative outcomes of intracorporeal robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int J Surg. 2021;94:106137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aminoltejari K, Black PC. Radical cystectomy: a review of techniques, developments and controversies. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(6):3073–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. O’Connor E, Timm B, Lawrentschuk N, Ischia J. Open partial nephrectomy: current review. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(6):3149–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Crocerossa F, Carbonara U, Cantiello F, Marchioni M, Ditonno P, Mir MC, Porpiglia F, Derweesh I, Hampton LJ, Damiano R, Autorino R. Robot-assisted radical nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2021;80(4):428–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ge S, Chen L, Tai S. Comparison of therapeutic effects among different surgical approaches in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2021;35(5):623–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Veccia A, Antonelli A, Francavilla S, Simeone C, Guruli G, Zargar H, Perdoná S, Ferro M, Carrieri G, Hampton LJ, Porpiglia F, Autorino R. Robotic versus other nephroureterectomy techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 87,000 cases. World J Urol. 2020;38(4):845–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pareek G, Hedican SP, Gee JR, Bruskewitz RC, Nakada SY. Meta-analysis of the complications of laparoscopic renal surgery: comparison of procedures and techniques. J Urol. 2006;175(4):1208–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Xu H, Ding Q, Jiang HW. Fewer complications after laparoscopic nephrectomy as compared to the open procedure with the modified Clavien classification system—a retrospective analysis from southern China. World J Surg Oncol. 2014;12:242.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Veracierto F, Sanchez N, Mosna L, Vegas DH, Salgado R. Management of Chylous ascites after laparoscopic nephrectomy for living kidney donor: a case report and literature review. Transplant Proc. 2021;53(4):1251–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelo Naselli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Naselli, A., Oliva, I., Graziotti, P. (2023). Major Complications of Urologic Surgery. In: Aseni, P., Grande, A.M., Leppäniemi, A., Chiara, O. (eds) The High-risk Surgical Patient. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17273-1_47

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17273-1_47

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-17272-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-17273-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics