Single-surgeon series of delayed anastomotic urethroplasty for pelvic fracture urethral injury: an analysis of surgical and patient-reported outcomes of a 10-year experience in a Japanese referral center
To report our experience with delayed anastomotic urethroplasty for pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI) during the last 10 years and evaluate both surgical and patient-reported outcomes.
Retrospective analysis of 115 patients undergoing delayed anastomotic urethroplasty for PFUI between 2008 and 2017 by a single surgeon (AH) was performed. Success was defined as a urethral lumen large enough for passage of a 17-Fr flexible cystoscope. We asked patients to complete questionnaires before (baseline) and 1 year after urethroplasty and compared by paired t and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests the answers to a question about LUTS-specific QOL and the health-related QOL indicated by EQ-5D index and visual analogue scores (EQVAS). Overall patient satisfaction 1 year after urethroplasty was also evaluated.
Urethroplasty was successful in 108 patients (93.9%), and failed urethroplasty was significantly associated with greater intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.009) and smaller surgical experience (p = 0.018). Sixty-six patients (57.4%) completed questionnaires 1 year after urethroplasty, and 65 of those 66 (98.5%) were “satisfied” (36.4%) or “very satisfied” (62.1%) with the outcome of their urethroplasty. The LUTS-specific QOL scores (p < 0.0001), EQ-5D index scores (p < 0.0001), and EQVAS scores (p < 0.0001) all improved significantly after urethroplasty.
Delayed anastomotic urethroplasty has a high success rate and significant beneficial effects on both LUTS-specific and health-related QOL, resulting in high patient satisfaction. Careful manipulation in a bloodless operative field by experienced surgeons could be the key to successful urethroplasty.
KeywordsPelvic fracture Urethral injury Urethroplasty Patient-reported outcome
This study was supported by a grant for scientific research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (16H05467). We have no financial interests to disclose.
AH: data collection, project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing. MS: data collection/analysis. KO: data collection. AM: data collection. KI: data collection. TA: data collection. ET: data collection. FK: data collection. RA: data collection, project development, and manuscript editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 5.Brandes S, Morey A (2013) Advanced urethral and genital reconstructive surgery. Humana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 7.Horiguchi A, Edo H, Soga S, Shinchi M, Masunaga A, Ito K, Asano T, Shinmoto H, Azuma R (2017) Pubourethral Stump Angle Measured on Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Urethroplasty Type for Pelvic Fracture Urethral Injury Repair. Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.038 Google Scholar
- 10.Donovan JL, Peters TJ, Abrams P, Brookes ST, de aa Rosette JJ, Schafer W (2000) Scoring the short form ICSmaleSF questionnaire. International Continence Society. J Urol 164(6):1948–1955Google Scholar
- 18.Fu Q, Zhang YM, Barbagli G, Zhang J, Xie H, Sa YL, Jin SB, Xu YM (2015) Factors that influence the outcome of open urethroplasty for pelvis fracture urethral defect (PFUD): an observational study from a single high-volume tertiary care center. World J Urol 33(12):2169–2175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1533-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Kizer WS, Armenakas NA, Brandes SB, Cavalcanti AG, Santucci RA, Morey AF (2007) Simplified reconstruction of posterior urethral disruption defects: limited role of supracrural rerouting. J Urol 177(4):1378–1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.036 (discussion 1381-1372) CrossRefGoogle Scholar