Vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis following radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional outcome analysis with a focus on endoscopic approach, surgical sequence, and the impact of radiation therapy

Objectives To investigate the predictors of recurrence and of de novo incontinence in patients treated by transurethral incision or resection for vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis (VUAS) after radical prostatectomy. Material and methods All patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for VUAS betwee...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:World journal of urology 2021, Vol.39 (1), p.89-95
Hauptverfasser: Pfalzgraf, D., Worst, T., Kranz, J., Steffens, J., Salomon, G., Fisch, M., Reiß, C. P., Vetterlein, M. W., Rosenbaum, C. M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 95
container_issue 1
container_start_page 89
container_title World journal of urology
container_volume 39
creator Pfalzgraf, D.
Worst, T.
Kranz, J.
Steffens, J.
Salomon, G.
Fisch, M.
Reiß, C. P.
Vetterlein, M. W.
Rosenbaum, C. M.
description Objectives To investigate the predictors of recurrence and of de novo incontinence in patients treated by transurethral incision or resection for vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis (VUAS) after radical prostatectomy. Material and methods All patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for VUAS between March 2009 and October 2016 were identified in our multi-institutional database. Digital chart reviews were performed and patients contacted for follow-up. Recurrence was defined as any need for further instrumentation or surgery, and de-novo-incontinence as patient-reported outcome. Results Of 103 patients undergoing endoscopic VUAS treatment, 67 (65%) underwent transurethral resection (TR) and 36 (35%) transurethral incision (TI). TI was performed more frequently as primary treatment compared to TR (58% vs. 37%; p  = 0.041). Primary and repeated treatment was performed in 46 (45%) and 57 patients (55%), respectively. Overall, 38 patients (37%) had a history of radiation therapy. There was no difference in time to recurrence for primary vs repeat VUAS treatment, previous vs no radiation, TR compared to TI (all p  > 0.08). Regarding treatment success, no difference was found for primary vs. repeat VUAS treatment (50% vs. 37%), previous radiation vs. no radiation (42% vs. 43%), and TR vs. TI (37% vs. 53%; all p  ≥ 0.1). Postoperative de novo incontinence was more common after TI vs. TR (31% vs. 12%; p  = 0.032), no difference was observed for previous radiation therapy vs. no radiation therapy (18% vs. 18%; p  > 0.9) or primary vs. repeat VUAS treatment (22% vs. 16%; p  = 0.5). Conclusion VUAS recurrence after endoscopic treatment is not predictable. Endoscopic treatment with TI showed a higher risk for de novo incontinence than TR, and previous irradiation and the number of treatments do not influence incontinence.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00345-020-03157-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2385707653</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2485938099</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a0fdfd874022deb9ff59b80ca173eab9ebb52de170175eeec4a42864f5486b813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUuLFDEUhYMoTjv6B1xIwI2LKU3lUUm5k8EXDLhRt0UqddOdoSop82Dof-jPMtU9KrhwFcj97jmHexB63pLXLSHyTSKEcdEQShrCWiEb_gDtWs5YoyTtHqIdkZQ3vFfsAj1J6ZaQVnZEPEYXjFLWdR3doZ_fITkTmhIhH6KesfY65bCE7AxOGXxILmEb5jncOb_HUU_OVGyNIWWdwVT2-BZrvJQ5u8b5lF0u2QVfoVCyCQtsmvNx07lz-VBZG0xJOHgMfgrJhLV66bVKanO4wqnE_ckjwY8C3sBVFZhwPgB2y6pNxsGecujNZvuPej0-RY-snhM8u38v0bcP779ef2puvnz8fP3upjFMitxoYic7KckJpROMvbWiHxUxupUM9NjDOIo6aGW9lQAAwzWnquNWcNWNqmWX6NVZt8at8VIeFpcMzLP2EEoaKFNCEtkJVtGX_6C3ocR6i0pxJXqmSN9Xip4pU0-aIthhjW7R8Ti0ZNh6Hs49D7Xn4dTzwOvSi3vpMi4w_Vn5XWwF2BlIdeT3EP96_0f2F5YyuZk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2485938099</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis following radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional outcome analysis with a focus on endoscopic approach, surgical sequence, and the impact of radiation therapy</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Pfalzgraf, D. ; Worst, T. ; Kranz, J. ; Steffens, J. ; Salomon, G. ; Fisch, M. ; Reiß, C. P. ; Vetterlein, M. W. ; Rosenbaum, C. M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pfalzgraf, D. ; Worst, T. ; Kranz, J. ; Steffens, J. ; Salomon, G. ; Fisch, M. ; Reiß, C. P. ; Vetterlein, M. W. ; Rosenbaum, C. M.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives To investigate the predictors of recurrence and of de novo incontinence in patients treated by transurethral incision or resection for vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis (VUAS) after radical prostatectomy. Material and methods All patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for VUAS between March 2009 and October 2016 were identified in our multi-institutional database. Digital chart reviews were performed and patients contacted for follow-up. Recurrence was defined as any need for further instrumentation or surgery, and de-novo-incontinence as patient-reported outcome. Results Of 103 patients undergoing endoscopic VUAS treatment, 67 (65%) underwent transurethral resection (TR) and 36 (35%) transurethral incision (TI). TI was performed more frequently as primary treatment compared to TR (58% vs. 37%; p  = 0.041). Primary and repeated treatment was performed in 46 (45%) and 57 patients (55%), respectively. Overall, 38 patients (37%) had a history of radiation therapy. There was no difference in time to recurrence for primary vs repeat VUAS treatment, previous vs no radiation, TR compared to TI (all p  &gt; 0.08). Regarding treatment success, no difference was found for primary vs. repeat VUAS treatment (50% vs. 37%), previous radiation vs. no radiation (42% vs. 43%), and TR vs. TI (37% vs. 53%; all p  ≥ 0.1). Postoperative de novo incontinence was more common after TI vs. TR (31% vs. 12%; p  = 0.032), no difference was observed for previous radiation therapy vs. no radiation therapy (18% vs. 18%; p  &gt; 0.9) or primary vs. repeat VUAS treatment (22% vs. 16%; p  = 0.5). Conclusion VUAS recurrence after endoscopic treatment is not predictable. Endoscopic treatment with TI showed a higher risk for de novo incontinence than TR, and previous irradiation and the number of treatments do not influence incontinence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0724-4983</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-8726</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03157-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32236662</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Endoscopy ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Nephrology ; Oncology ; Original Article ; Patients ; Prostate cancer ; Prostatectomy ; Radiation therapy ; Stenosis ; Surgery ; Urological surgery ; Urology</subject><ispartof>World journal of urology, 2021, Vol.39 (1), p.89-95</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a0fdfd874022deb9ff59b80ca173eab9ebb52de170175eeec4a42864f5486b813</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a0fdfd874022deb9ff59b80ca173eab9ebb52de170175eeec4a42864f5486b813</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00345-020-03157-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00345-020-03157-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32236662$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pfalzgraf, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Worst, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kranz, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steffens, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salomon, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisch, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reiß, C. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vetterlein, M. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenbaum, C. M.</creatorcontrib><title>Vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis following radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional outcome analysis with a focus on endoscopic approach, surgical sequence, and the impact of radiation therapy</title><title>World journal of urology</title><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><description>Objectives To investigate the predictors of recurrence and of de novo incontinence in patients treated by transurethral incision or resection for vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis (VUAS) after radical prostatectomy. Material and methods All patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for VUAS between March 2009 and October 2016 were identified in our multi-institutional database. Digital chart reviews were performed and patients contacted for follow-up. Recurrence was defined as any need for further instrumentation or surgery, and de-novo-incontinence as patient-reported outcome. Results Of 103 patients undergoing endoscopic VUAS treatment, 67 (65%) underwent transurethral resection (TR) and 36 (35%) transurethral incision (TI). TI was performed more frequently as primary treatment compared to TR (58% vs. 37%; p  = 0.041). Primary and repeated treatment was performed in 46 (45%) and 57 patients (55%), respectively. Overall, 38 patients (37%) had a history of radiation therapy. There was no difference in time to recurrence for primary vs repeat VUAS treatment, previous vs no radiation, TR compared to TI (all p  &gt; 0.08). Regarding treatment success, no difference was found for primary vs. repeat VUAS treatment (50% vs. 37%), previous radiation vs. no radiation (42% vs. 43%), and TR vs. TI (37% vs. 53%; all p  ≥ 0.1). Postoperative de novo incontinence was more common after TI vs. TR (31% vs. 12%; p  = 0.032), no difference was observed for previous radiation therapy vs. no radiation therapy (18% vs. 18%; p  &gt; 0.9) or primary vs. repeat VUAS treatment (22% vs. 16%; p  = 0.5). Conclusion VUAS recurrence after endoscopic treatment is not predictable. Endoscopic treatment with TI showed a higher risk for de novo incontinence than TR, and previous irradiation and the number of treatments do not influence incontinence.</description><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Nephrology</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Prostatectomy</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Stenosis</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Urological surgery</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>0724-4983</issn><issn>1433-8726</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUuLFDEUhYMoTjv6B1xIwI2LKU3lUUm5k8EXDLhRt0UqddOdoSop82Dof-jPMtU9KrhwFcj97jmHexB63pLXLSHyTSKEcdEQShrCWiEb_gDtWs5YoyTtHqIdkZQ3vFfsAj1J6ZaQVnZEPEYXjFLWdR3doZ_fITkTmhIhH6KesfY65bCE7AxOGXxILmEb5jncOb_HUU_OVGyNIWWdwVT2-BZrvJQ5u8b5lF0u2QVfoVCyCQtsmvNx07lz-VBZG0xJOHgMfgrJhLV66bVKanO4wqnE_ckjwY8C3sBVFZhwPgB2y6pNxsGecujNZvuPej0-RY-snhM8u38v0bcP779ef2puvnz8fP3upjFMitxoYic7KckJpROMvbWiHxUxupUM9NjDOIo6aGW9lQAAwzWnquNWcNWNqmWX6NVZt8at8VIeFpcMzLP2EEoaKFNCEtkJVtGX_6C3ocR6i0pxJXqmSN9Xip4pU0-aIthhjW7R8Ti0ZNh6Hs49D7Xn4dTzwOvSi3vpMi4w_Vn5XWwF2BlIdeT3EP96_0f2F5YyuZk</recordid><startdate>2021</startdate><enddate>2021</enddate><creator>Pfalzgraf, D.</creator><creator>Worst, T.</creator><creator>Kranz, J.</creator><creator>Steffens, J.</creator><creator>Salomon, G.</creator><creator>Fisch, M.</creator><creator>Reiß, C. P.</creator><creator>Vetterlein, M. W.</creator><creator>Rosenbaum, C. M.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2021</creationdate><title>Vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis following radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional outcome analysis with a focus on endoscopic approach, surgical sequence, and the impact of radiation therapy</title><author>Pfalzgraf, D. ; Worst, T. ; Kranz, J. ; Steffens, J. ; Salomon, G. ; Fisch, M. ; Reiß, C. P. ; Vetterlein, M. W. ; Rosenbaum, C. M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-a0fdfd874022deb9ff59b80ca173eab9ebb52de170175eeec4a42864f5486b813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Nephrology</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Prostatectomy</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Stenosis</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Urological surgery</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pfalzgraf, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Worst, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kranz, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steffens, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salomon, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisch, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reiß, C. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vetterlein, M. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenbaum, C. M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>World journal of urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pfalzgraf, D.</au><au>Worst, T.</au><au>Kranz, J.</au><au>Steffens, J.</au><au>Salomon, G.</au><au>Fisch, M.</au><au>Reiß, C. P.</au><au>Vetterlein, M. W.</au><au>Rosenbaum, C. M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis following radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional outcome analysis with a focus on endoscopic approach, surgical sequence, and the impact of radiation therapy</atitle><jtitle>World journal of urology</jtitle><stitle>World J Urol</stitle><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><date>2021</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>89</spage><epage>95</epage><pages>89-95</pages><issn>0724-4983</issn><eissn>1433-8726</eissn><abstract>Objectives To investigate the predictors of recurrence and of de novo incontinence in patients treated by transurethral incision or resection for vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis (VUAS) after radical prostatectomy. Material and methods All patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for VUAS between March 2009 and October 2016 were identified in our multi-institutional database. Digital chart reviews were performed and patients contacted for follow-up. Recurrence was defined as any need for further instrumentation or surgery, and de-novo-incontinence as patient-reported outcome. Results Of 103 patients undergoing endoscopic VUAS treatment, 67 (65%) underwent transurethral resection (TR) and 36 (35%) transurethral incision (TI). TI was performed more frequently as primary treatment compared to TR (58% vs. 37%; p  = 0.041). Primary and repeated treatment was performed in 46 (45%) and 57 patients (55%), respectively. Overall, 38 patients (37%) had a history of radiation therapy. There was no difference in time to recurrence for primary vs repeat VUAS treatment, previous vs no radiation, TR compared to TI (all p  &gt; 0.08). Regarding treatment success, no difference was found for primary vs. repeat VUAS treatment (50% vs. 37%), previous radiation vs. no radiation (42% vs. 43%), and TR vs. TI (37% vs. 53%; all p  ≥ 0.1). Postoperative de novo incontinence was more common after TI vs. TR (31% vs. 12%; p  = 0.032), no difference was observed for previous radiation therapy vs. no radiation therapy (18% vs. 18%; p  &gt; 0.9) or primary vs. repeat VUAS treatment (22% vs. 16%; p  = 0.5). Conclusion VUAS recurrence after endoscopic treatment is not predictable. Endoscopic treatment with TI showed a higher risk for de novo incontinence than TR, and previous irradiation and the number of treatments do not influence incontinence.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>32236662</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00345-020-03157-4</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0724-4983
ispartof World journal of urology, 2021, Vol.39 (1), p.89-95
issn 0724-4983
1433-8726
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2385707653
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Endoscopy
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Nephrology
Oncology
Original Article
Patients
Prostate cancer
Prostatectomy
Radiation therapy
Stenosis
Surgery
Urological surgery
Urology
title Vesico-urethral anastomotic stenosis following radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional outcome analysis with a focus on endoscopic approach, surgical sequence, and the impact of radiation therapy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T19%3A33%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Vesico-urethral%20anastomotic%20stenosis%20following%20radical%20prostatectomy:%20a%20multi-institutional%20outcome%20analysis%20with%20a%20focus%20on%20endoscopic%20approach,%20surgical%20sequence,%20and%20the%20impact%20of%20radiation%20therapy&rft.jtitle=World%20journal%20of%20urology&rft.au=Pfalzgraf,%20D.&rft.date=2021&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=89&rft.epage=95&rft.pages=89-95&rft.issn=0724-4983&rft.eissn=1433-8726&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00345-020-03157-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2485938099%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2485938099&rft_id=info:pmid/32236662&rfr_iscdi=true