17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Bipolar Transurethral Incision of Bladder Neck Stenoses with Mitomycin C Injection

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction. To determine the efficacy of bipolar transurethral incision with mitomycin C (MMC) injection for the treatment of refractory bladder neck stenosis (BNS). Materials and Methods. Patients who underwent bipolar transurethral incision of BNS (TUIBNS) with MMC injection at our institution from 2013 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 2 mg of 40% mitomycin C solution was injected in four quadrants of the treated BNS. Treatment failure was defined as the need for subsequent intervention. Results. Thirteen patients underwent 17 bipolar TUIBNS with MMC injection. Twelve (92%) patients had failed a mean of 2.2 ± 1.1 prior endoscopic procedures. Median follow-up was 16.5 months (IQR: 14–18.4 months). Initial success was 62%; five (38%) patients had a recurrence with a median time to recurrence of 7.3 months. Four patients underwent a repeat procedure, 2 (50%) of which failed. Overall success was achieved in 77% (10/13) of patients after a mean of 1.3 ± 0.5 procedures. BNS recurrence was not significantly associated with history of pelvic radiation (33% versus 43%, p = 0.9). There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions. Bipolar TUIBNS with MMC injection was comparable in efficacy to previously reported techniques and did not result in any serious adverse events.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          SIU/ICUD Consultation On Urethral Strictures: Epidemiology, etiology, anatomy, and nomenclature of urethral stenoses, strictures, and pelvic fracture urethral disruption injuries.

          This committee reviewed and evaluated published data, and recommended standardized terminology relating to the epidemiology, etiology, anatomy, and nomenclature of urethral stenoses, urethral strictures, and pelvic fracture urethral disruption injuries, as well as their surgical management. A literature search using Medline, PubMed (U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health), Embase, online acronym databases, and abstracts from scientific meetings was performed from 1980-2010. Articles were evaluated using the Levels of Evidence adapted by the International Consultation on Urological Diseases (ICUD) from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Recommendations were based on the level of evidence and discussed among the committee to reach a consensus. There is expert opinion to support standards regarding the epidemiology, anatomy, and nomenclature of urethral stenoses, urethral strictures, and pelvic fracture urethral disruption injuries. There is level 3 evidence regarding the epidemiology and etiology of urethral stenoses, urethral strictures, and pelvic fracture urethral injuries. The literature regarding the epidemiology, anatomy, and nomenclature of urethral stenoses, urethral strictures, and pelvic fracture urethral disruption injuries are sparse and generally of a low level of evidence. The proposed ICUD system does not readily apply to these areas. Further research is needed so that stronger levels of evidence can be developed leading to recommendations regarding the accuracy of the data. To improve future research and promote effective scientific progress and communication, a standardized nomenclature and anatomy regarding the urethra and urethral surgery is detailed herein.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Posterior urethral complications of the treatment of prostate cancer.

            • To review the less common and not widely discussed, but much more serious complications of prostate cancer treatment of: urethral stricture, bladder neck contracture and urorectal fistula. • The treatment options for patients with organ-confirmed prostate cancer include: radical prostatectomy (RP), brachytherapy (BT), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) and cryotherapy; with each method or combination of methods having associated complications. • Complications resulting from RP are relatively easy to manage, with rapid recovery and return to normal activities, and usually a return to normal bodily functions. • However, after non-surgical treatments, i.e. BT, EBRT, HIFU and cryotherapy, these same problems are more difficult to treat with a much slower return to a much lower level of function. • When counselling patients about the primary treatment of prostate cancer they should be advised that although the same type of complication may occur after surgical or non-surgical treatment, the scope and scale of that complication, the ease with which it is treated and the degree of restoration of normality after treatment, is altogether in favour of surgery in those for whom surgery is appropriate and who are fit for surgery.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Anastomotic strictures following radical prostatectomy: insights into incidence, effectiveness of intervention, effect on continence, and factors predisposing to occurrence.

              To examine the incidence, effectiveness of intervention, effect on continence, and factors predisposing to the occurrence of anastomotic strictures following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Between January 1994 and June 1999, 753 radical retropubic prostatectomies were performed by a single surgeon. Anastomotic strictures were managed by dilatation followed by a self-catheterization regimen. Dilatations were repeated unless more than three dilatations were required over a 9-month interval. A control group representing a randomly selected group of men who did not develop anastomotic strictures was identified. The largest width of the midline vertical abdominal scar was measured. Of the 753 radical retropubic prostatectomies, 36 (4.8%) developed an anastomotic stricture. The mean time interval between the surgical procedure and diagnosis of the stricture was 4.22 months. Of the 26 cases of anastomotic strictures with at least 1-year follow-up, 24 (92.3%) were managed successfully by dilatations alone. No baseline characteristics before surgery were associated with the development of a stricture. The maximal scar width was the only factor that was associated with the development of a stricture in this study. Men with a maximal scar of greater than 10 mm were eight times more likely to develop strictures than men with smaller scars. The percentage of men who required protective pads 1 year following radical retropubic prostatectomy in the control and stricture groups was 12.5% and 46.2%, respectively. Anastomotic strictures are relatively rare following radical prostatectomy and have a negative effect on the development of continence. Most men are successfully managed with dilatations alone. The development of anastomotic strictures in some men appears to be related to a generalized hypertrophic wound-healing mechanism.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Adv Urol
                Adv Urol
                AU
                Advances in Urology
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1687-6369
                1687-6377
                2015
                8 October 2015
                : 2015
                : 758536
                Affiliations
                Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
                Author notes
                *Timothy D. Lyon: lyontd@ 123456upmc.edu

                Academic Editor: Francisco E. Martins

                Article
                10.1155/2015/758536
                4617885
                1cdf8799-a97e-4bca-b791-47e8c4f9bfdd
                Copyright © 2015 Timothy D. Lyon et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 August 2015
                : 21 September 2015
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Urology
                Urology

                Comments

                Comment on this article