Usefulness of a high‐speed surgical air drill in pubectomy during delayed anastomotic urethroplasty for pelvic fracture urethral injury
Objectives Pubectomy is an ancillary technique used to increase exposure of the disrupted urethra and reduce anastomotic tension, which can be difficult for inexperienced surgeons. The objective of the present study was to illustrate the use of an air drill enabling delicate and precise bone resecti...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of urology 2020-11, Vol.27 (11), p.1002-1007 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objectives
Pubectomy is an ancillary technique used to increase exposure of the disrupted urethra and reduce anastomotic tension, which can be difficult for inexperienced surgeons. The objective of the present study was to illustrate the use of an air drill enabling delicate and precise bone resection in pubectomy for delayed anastomotic urethroplasty for pelvic fracture urethral injury.
Methods
Between 2009 and 2019, 88 male patients underwent delayed anastomotic urethroplasty with pubectomy for pelvic fracture urethral injury. A total of 73 procedures used a high‐speed surgical air drill (HiLAN HS; Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany) equipped with a short‐hand piece. Operative time and blood loss in the air drill patient group (group 1) were compared with that of patients who underwent pubectomy using a rongeur and/or gouge (group 2, n = 15).
Results
In 65 group 1 patients, urethroplasty was carried out using the perineal approach, with partial inferior pubectomy. Eight group 1 patients, whose proximal urethral end was displaced upward superior to the upper edge of pubis, underwent urethroplasty using the perineal and abdominal approach, with a superior partial pubectomy and supracrural urethral rerouting. No difficulty was encountered using the air drill in any of the cases. There was no significant difference in median operative time between the groups (group 1 256 min vs group 2 228 min; P = 0.31). The median blood loss in group 1 was significantly lower than group 2 (149 mL vs 453 mL; P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0919-8172 1442-2042 1442-2042 |
DOI: | 10.1111/iju.14344 |