Urology · 2022
Outcomes of Vesicourethral Anastomotic Stenosis and Bladder Neck Contracture With Direct Visual Internal Urethrotomy With Mitomycin-C After Prostate Cancer Treatment.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hacker Emily C, Maganty Avinash, Pere Maria M, Rusilko Paul J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of Direct Visual Internal Urethrotomy with Mitomycin-C (DVIU-MMC) for bladder neck contracture and vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis in men who have undergone treatment for prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy and/or radiation therapy.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients at a tertiary care center who underwent DVIU-MMC for recurrent bladder neck contracture/vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis between 2012 and 2020. Patients with complete urethral obliteration, prior bladder neck reconstruction, or less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded. Patients were sorted into three groups based on prostate cancer treatment history: radical prostatectomy (RP), RP with subsequent external beam radiation therapy (RP-EBRT), and radiation therapy (RT).
RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with a median follow up of 32 months were included. Twenty-nine percent had pre-operative suprapubic tube (SPT), Foley, or required clean intermittent catheterization. Overall success after initial DVIU-MMC was 45%. In all patients with up to four procedures, cumulative overall success was 84%. There was no significant difference in relative success rates between groups. However, the interval to recurrence after initial DVIU-MMC was shortest for RP-EBRT group (P = .018). Three patients required SPT, all were in the RP-EBRT group. There was no statistical difference in recurrence after any number of procedures between patients in radiation (RP-EBRT and RT) and non-radiation (RP) groups.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in success rates between patients who had undergone RP-EBRT, RT, or RP. However, our data suggests that RP-EBRT patients experience poorer outcomes given that their interval to recurrence was more rapid and all patients requiring SPT placement were in this group.
METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients at a tertiary care center who underwent DVIU-MMC for recurrent bladder neck contracture/vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis between 2012 and 2020. Patients with complete urethral obliteration, prior bladder neck reconstruction, or less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded. Patients were sorted into three groups based on prostate cancer treatment history: radical prostatectomy (RP), RP with subsequent external beam radiation therapy (RP-EBRT), and radiation therapy (RT).
RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with a median follow up of 32 months were included. Twenty-nine percent had pre-operative suprapubic tube (SPT), Foley, or required clean intermittent catheterization. Overall success after initial DVIU-MMC was 45%. In all patients with up to four procedures, cumulative overall success was 84%. There was no significant difference in relative success rates between groups. However, the interval to recurrence after initial DVIU-MMC was shortest for RP-EBRT group (P = .018). Three patients required SPT, all were in the RP-EBRT group. There was no statistical difference in recurrence after any number of procedures between patients in radiation (RP-EBRT and RT) and non-radiation (RP) groups.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in success rates between patients who had undergone RP-EBRT, RT, or RP. However, our data suggests that RP-EBRT patients experience poorer outcomes given that their interval to recurrence was more rapid and all patients requiring SPT placement were in this group.