Step by step Indiana pouch construction in a previously irradiated patient with a cervical cancer relapse.
Cervical cancer
Indiana Pouch (IP)
LEER
Previously irradiated pelvis
Step by step
Journal
International journal of surgery case reports
ISSN: 2210-2612
Titre abrégé: Int J Surg Case Rep
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101529872
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
22
10
2019
revised:
24
11
2019
accepted:
28
11
2019
pubmed:
23
12
2019
medline:
23
12
2019
entrez:
23
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Radiation therapy and radical pelvic surgery, either radical cystectomy or pelvic exenteration, is the golden standard treatment for infiltrating bladder carcinoma, as well as advanced or recurrent cervical, vulvar, vaginal and endometrial cancer. However, due to the poor radiation sensitivity of the cervix and vagina, a high-radiation dose is required, leading to early and/or late onset urogenital complications in approximately 50% of the patients. The following case report describes a 64-year-old native Russian woman presenting a relapse of a vaginal cuff squamous cell carcinoma, who underwent a laterally extended endopelvic resection (LEER) followed by a neobladder reconstruction based on the Indiana pouch (IP) technique. The process is described here step by step. Indiana pouch urinary diversion was based on thorough research, the reproducibility of the technique, our urologist's experience with the Indiana Pouch, as well the lower rate of complications published in various separate series. Indiana pouch is a successful continence urinary reservoir with a reproductible technique, however long-term observation is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31865230
pii: S2210-2612(19)30703-5
doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.11.068
pmc: PMC6928324
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Case Reports
Langues
eng
Pagination
187-191Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Actas Urol Esp. 2014 Jul-Aug;38(6):413-8
pubmed: 24791619
Urol Case Rep. 2015 Jul 26;3(5):141-2
pubmed: 26793531
Urol Clin North Am. 2018 Feb;45(1):55-65
pubmed: 29169451
Gynecol Oncol. 1995 Dec;59(3):376-8
pubmed: 8522258
Int J Surg. 2018 Dec;60:132-136
pubmed: 30342279
J Urol. 1988 Jan;139(1):39-42
pubmed: 3336101
J Urol. 1973 Feb;109(2):210-6
pubmed: 4685730
Obstet Gynecol. 1990 May;75(5):891-3
pubmed: 2325973
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Jul 30;32(5):1289-300
pubmed: 7635768
Urology. 2000 Nov 1;56(5):798-802
pubmed: 11068305
Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Feb;92(2):680-3
pubmed: 14766266
Arch Surg. 1969 Aug;99(2):223-31
pubmed: 5794896
J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):2058-62
pubmed: 11956438
J Urol. 2002 Feb;167(2 Pt 2):1140-5; discussion 1146
pubmed: 11905889
BJU Int. 2015 Nov;116(5):805-14
pubmed: 25168771
Urol Oncol. 2005 Jan-Feb;23(1):12-5
pubmed: 15885577
Urol Case Rep. 2018 Jan 11;17:53-55
pubmed: 29379738