Outcomes of gracilis muscle interposition for rectourethral fistulas caused by treatment of prostate cancer.
Humans
Male
Female
Middle Aged
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Gracilis Muscle
/ transplantation
Transurethral Resection of Prostate
/ adverse effects
Retrospective Studies
Rectal Fistula
/ etiology
Urinary Fistula
/ etiology
Urethral Diseases
/ etiology
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ surgery
Treatment Outcome
Gracilis muscle interposition
Outcome
Prostate cancer
Rectourethral fistulas
Journal
Techniques in coloproctology
ISSN: 1128-045X
Titre abrégé: Tech Coloproctol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9613614
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2023
10 2023
Historique:
received:
15
11
2022
accepted:
24
01
2023
medline:
11
9
2023
pubmed:
18
2
2023
entrez:
17
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Gracilis muscle interposition (GMI) has been associated with favorable outcomes in treating complex perianal fistulas. Outcomes of GMI may vary according to the fistula etiology, particularly between rectovaginal fistulas in women and rectourethral fistulas (RUF) in men. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of GMI to treat RUF acquired after prostate cancer treatment. This retrospective cohort study included male patients treated with GMI for RUF acquired after prostate cancer treatment between January 2000 and December 2018 in the Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida. The primary outcome was the success of GMI, defined as complete healing of RUF without recurrence. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and postoperative complications. This study included 53 male patients with a median age of 68 (range, 46-85) years. Patients developed RUF after treatment of prostate cancer with radiation (52.8%), surgery (34%), or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (13.2%). Median hospital stay was 5 (IQR, 4-7) days. Twenty (37.7%) patients experienced 25 complications, the most common being wound infection and dehiscence. Primary healing after GMI was achieved in 28 (52.8%) patients. Fifteen additional patients experienced successful healing of RUF after additional procedures, for a total success rate of 81.1%. Median time to complete healing was 8 (range, 4-56) weeks. The only significant factor associated with outcome of GMI was wound dehiscence (p = 0.008). Although the initial success rate of GMI was approximately 53%, it increased to 81% after additional procedures. Complications after GMI were mostly minor, with wound complications being the most common. Perianal wound dehiscence was significantly associated with failure of healing of RUF after GMI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Gracilis muscle interposition (GMI) has been associated with favorable outcomes in treating complex perianal fistulas. Outcomes of GMI may vary according to the fistula etiology, particularly between rectovaginal fistulas in women and rectourethral fistulas (RUF) in men. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of GMI to treat RUF acquired after prostate cancer treatment.
METHODS
This retrospective cohort study included male patients treated with GMI for RUF acquired after prostate cancer treatment between January 2000 and December 2018 in the Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida. The primary outcome was the success of GMI, defined as complete healing of RUF without recurrence. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.
RESULTS
This study included 53 male patients with a median age of 68 (range, 46-85) years. Patients developed RUF after treatment of prostate cancer with radiation (52.8%), surgery (34%), or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (13.2%). Median hospital stay was 5 (IQR, 4-7) days. Twenty (37.7%) patients experienced 25 complications, the most common being wound infection and dehiscence. Primary healing after GMI was achieved in 28 (52.8%) patients. Fifteen additional patients experienced successful healing of RUF after additional procedures, for a total success rate of 81.1%. Median time to complete healing was 8 (range, 4-56) weeks. The only significant factor associated with outcome of GMI was wound dehiscence (p = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS
Although the initial success rate of GMI was approximately 53%, it increased to 81% after additional procedures. Complications after GMI were mostly minor, with wound complications being the most common. Perianal wound dehiscence was significantly associated with failure of healing of RUF after GMI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36800073
doi: 10.1007/s10151-023-02759-5
pii: 10.1007/s10151-023-02759-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
937-944Informations de copyright
© 2023. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
Basler J. Enterovesical fistula. Available online at https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/442000-overview . Accessed 27 Sep 2022
Keady C, Hechtl D, Joyce M (2020) When the bowel meets the bladder: optimal management of colorectal pathology with urological involvement. World J Gastrointest Surg 12:208–225
doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v12.i5.208
pubmed: 32551027
pmcid: 7289647
Driver CP, Anderson DN, Findlay K et al (1997) Vesico-colic fistulae in the Grampian region: presentation, assessment, management and outcome. J R Coll Surg Edinb 42:182–185
pubmed: 9195812
Krco MJ, Jacobs SC, Malangoni MA, Lawson RK (1984) Colovesical fistulas. Urology 23:340–342
doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(84)90135-3
pubmed: 6710709
Chen S, Gao R, Li H, Wang K (2018) Management of acquired rectourethral fistulas in adults. Asian J Urol 5:149–154
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.01.003
pubmed: 29988864
pmcid: 6032817
Mundy AR, Andrich DE (2011) Urorectal fistulae following the treatment of prostate cancer. BJU Int 107:1298–1303
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09686.x
pubmed: 20883482
Tran H, Flannigan R, Rapoport D (2015) Transperineal approach to complex rectourinary fistulae. Can Urol Assoc J 9:E916–E920
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.3107
pubmed: 26788240
pmcid: 4707920
Nicita G, Villari D, Caroassai Grisanti S, Marzocco M, Li Marzi V, Martini A (2017) Minimally invasive transanal repair of rectourethral fistulas. Eur Urol 71:133–138
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.006
pubmed: 27339834
Choi JH, Jeon BG, Choi SG, Han EC, Ha HK, Oh HK (2014) Rectourethral fistula: systemic review of and experiences with various surgical treatment methods. Ann Coloproctol 30:35–44
doi: 10.3393/ac.2014.30.1.35
pubmed: 24639969
pmcid: 3953168
Samplaski MK, Wood HM, Lane BR, Remzi FH, Lucas A, Angermeier KW (2011) Functional and quality-of-life outcomes in patients undergoing transperineal repair with gracilis muscle interposition for complex rectourethral fistula. Urology 77:736–741
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.08.009
pubmed: 21377021
Voelzke BB, McAninch JW, Breyer BN, Glass AS, Garcia-Aguilar J (2013) Transperineal management for postoperative and radiation rectourethral fistulas. J Urol 189:966–971
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.238
pubmed: 23009867
Vanni AJ, Buckley JC, Zinman LN (2010) Management of surgical and radiation induced rectourethral fistulas with an interposition muscle flap and selective buccal mucosal onlay graft. J Urol 184:2400–2404
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.004
pubmed: 20952036
Zmora O, Potenti FM, Wexner SD et al (2003) Gracilis muscle transposition for iatrogenic rectourethral fistula. Ann Surg 237:483–487
doi: 10.1097/01.SLA.0000059970.82125.DB
pubmed: 12677143
pmcid: 1514481
Yellinek S, Sousa CB, Gilshtein H, Strassmann V, da Silva G, Wexner SD (2021) Gracilis muscle interposition for treatment of complex anal fistula: experience with 119 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum 64:881–887
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001964
pubmed: 33833143
Ramírez-Martín D, Jara-Rascón J, Renedo-Villar T, Hernández-Fernández C, Lledó-García E (2016) Rectourethral fistula management. Curr Urol Rep 17:22
doi: 10.1007/s11934-016-0578-2
pubmed: 26874534
Lane BR, Stein DE, Remzi FH, Strong SA, Fazio VW, Angermeier KW (2006) Management of radiotherapy induced rectourethral fistula. J Urol 75:1382–1387
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00687-7
Harris CR, McAninch JW, Mundy AR et al (2017) Rectourethral fistulas secondary to prostate cancer treatment: management and outcomes from a multi-institutional combined experience. J Urol 197:191–194
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.080
pubmed: 27544625
Mansfield JT, Stephenson RA (1996) Does transurethral resection of the prostate compromise the radical treatment of prostate cancer? Semin Urol Oncol 14(3):174–177 (PMID: 8865480)
pubmed: 8865480
Falavolti C, Sergi F, Shehu E (2013) York Mason procedure to repair Iatrogenic Rectourinary Fistula: our experience. World J Surg 37:2950–2955 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2199-y
doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2199-y
pubmed: 24045963
Hechenbleikner EM, Buckley JC, Wick EC (2013) Acquired rectourethral fistulas in adults: a systematic review of surgical repair techniques and outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 56:374–383
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e318274dc87
pubmed: 23392154
Ghoniem G, Elmissiry M, Weiss E, Langford C, Abdelwahab H, Wexner S (2008) Transperineal repair of complex rectourethral fistula using gracilis muscle flap interposition–can urinary and bowel functions be preserved? J Urol 179:1882–1886
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.021
pubmed: 18353391
Emile SH (2020) Recurrent anal fistulas: when, why, and how to manage? World J Clin Cases 6(8):1586–1591
doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i9.1586
Mei Z, Wang Q, Zhang Y et al (2019) Risk factors for recurrence after anal fistula surgery: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg 69:153–164
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.08.003
pubmed: 31400504
Gilshtein H, Strassman V, Wexner SD (2020) Redo gracilis interposition for complex perineal fistulas. Tech Coloproctol 24:475–478
doi: 10.1007/s10151-020-02185-x
pubmed: 32215768
Sharma RK, Parashar A (2012) The management of perineal wounds. Indian J Plast Surg 45:352–363
doi: 10.4103/0970-0358.101318
pubmed: 23162235
pmcid: 3495386