Urologia internationalis · 2017
Analysis of a Surgical Treatment for Persistent Urorectal Fistulas after Radical Cancer Surgery: A Comparison of Prostate Cancer and Rectal Cancer.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sakai Yasuyuki, Komai Yoshinobu, Saito Norio, Ito Masaaki, Sakuraba Minoru
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to present our experience of surgical treatment for urorectal fistulas (URF) that develop after cancer surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with URF who were treated at our institution from 2005 through 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Among these, 7 patients had previous surgical treatment of prostate cancer (PC) and the other 7 had been treated for rectal cancer (RC). The fistula was resected through a perineal incision, and the urinary and fecal defects were separately closed with the hinge flap method followed by interposition of a muscle flap transfer.
RESULTS: The overall fistula closure rate was 79%. Although the closure rate of the URF was lower in patients with previous RC surgery compared to the PC patients (57 vs. 100%), it did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: URF treatment using an interposition muscle flap offers a high success rate of fistula closure. However, complicated fistulas occurring after RC surgery involving the prostate or the seminal vesicle might be difficult to repair by this surgery alone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients with URF who were treated at our institution from 2005 through 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Among these, 7 patients had previous surgical treatment of prostate cancer (PC) and the other 7 had been treated for rectal cancer (RC). The fistula was resected through a perineal incision, and the urinary and fecal defects were separately closed with the hinge flap method followed by interposition of a muscle flap transfer.
RESULTS: The overall fistula closure rate was 79%. Although the closure rate of the URF was lower in patients with previous RC surgery compared to the PC patients (57 vs. 100%), it did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: URF treatment using an interposition muscle flap offers a high success rate of fistula closure. However, complicated fistulas occurring after RC surgery involving the prostate or the seminal vesicle might be difficult to repair by this surgery alone.