Comparison of perioperative outcomes between running versus interrupted vesicourethral anastomosis in open radical prostatectomy: A single-surgeon experience.

Ju Hyun Lim, Chang Myon Park, Han Kwon Kim, Jong Yeon Park
{"title":"Comparison of perioperative outcomes between running versus interrupted vesicourethral anastomosis in open radical prostatectomy: A single-surgeon experience.","authors":"Ju Hyun Lim,&nbsp;Chang Myon Park,&nbsp;Han Kwon Kim,&nbsp;Jong Yeon Park","doi":"10.4111/kju.2015.56.6.443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare perioperative outcomes between running and interrupted vesicourethral anastomosis in open radical prostatectomy (RP).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The medical records of 112 patients who underwent open RP for prostate cancer at our institution from 2006 to 2008 by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 112 consecutive patients, 62 patients underwent vesicourethral anastomosis by use of the running technique, whereas 50 patients underwent anastomosis with the interrupted technique. The groups did not differ significantly in age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, or pathologic findings. The intraoperative extravasation rate was significantly lower in the running group (8.1% vs. 24.0%, p=0.01). The mean anastomosis time was 15.1±5.3 and 19.3±4.6 minutes in the running and interrupted groups, respectively (p=0.04). The rates of postoperative extravasation were similar for both groups (6.4% vs. 10.0%, p=0.12). The duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in the running group (9.0±3.0 days vs. 12.9±6.4 days, p<0.01). The rate of urinary retention after catheter removal and the rate of bladder neck contracture were not significantly different between the two groups. The rate of urinary continence at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after RP was also similar in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both anastomosis techniques provided similar functional results and a similar rate of postoperative urine extravasation. However, running vesicourethral anastomosis decreased the rate of intraoperative extravasation and time for anastomosis, without increasing the risk of urinary retention or bladder neck contracture.</p>","PeriodicalId":17819,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Urology","volume":"56 6","pages":"443-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4111/kju.2015.56.6.443","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.6.443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Purpose: To compare perioperative outcomes between running and interrupted vesicourethral anastomosis in open radical prostatectomy (RP).

Materials and methods: The medical records of 112 patients who underwent open RP for prostate cancer at our institution from 2006 to 2008 by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were measured.

Results: Of 112 consecutive patients, 62 patients underwent vesicourethral anastomosis by use of the running technique, whereas 50 patients underwent anastomosis with the interrupted technique. The groups did not differ significantly in age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, or pathologic findings. The intraoperative extravasation rate was significantly lower in the running group (8.1% vs. 24.0%, p=0.01). The mean anastomosis time was 15.1±5.3 and 19.3±4.6 minutes in the running and interrupted groups, respectively (p=0.04). The rates of postoperative extravasation were similar for both groups (6.4% vs. 10.0%, p=0.12). The duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in the running group (9.0±3.0 days vs. 12.9±6.4 days, p<0.01). The rate of urinary retention after catheter removal and the rate of bladder neck contracture were not significantly different between the two groups. The rate of urinary continence at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after RP was also similar in both groups.

Conclusions: Both anastomosis techniques provided similar functional results and a similar rate of postoperative urine extravasation. However, running vesicourethral anastomosis decreased the rate of intraoperative extravasation and time for anastomosis, without increasing the risk of urinary retention or bladder neck contracture.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开放性根治性前列腺切除术中膀胱输尿管吻合术与连续性输尿管吻合术围手术期疗效的比较:单外科医生的经验。
目的:比较开放式根治性前列腺切除术(RP)中膀胱输尿管吻合术与连续性输尿管吻合术的围手术期疗效。材料与方法:回顾性分析我院2006 ~ 2008年由同一外科医生行前列腺癌开腹RP治疗的112例患者的病历。测量术前、术中、术后参数。结果:在连续112例患者中,62例采用顺流吻合法,50例采用间断吻合法。两组在年龄、体重指数、前列腺特异性抗原、前列腺体积或病理结果方面没有显著差异。跑步组术中外渗率明显低于跑步组(8.1% vs. 24.0%, p=0.01)。运行组和中断组的平均吻合时间分别为15.1±5.3分钟和19.3±4.6分钟(p=0.04)。两组术后外渗率相似(6.4% vs. 10.0%, p=0.12)。跑步组置管时间(9.0±3.0天)明显短于跑步组(12.9±6.4天)。结论:两种吻合方式的功能效果相似,术后尿外渗率相似。然而,膀胱尿道吻合术降低了术中外渗率和吻合时间,没有增加尿潴留或膀胱颈挛缩的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Letter to the editor: Impact of metabolic syndrome on response to medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia The authors reply: Impact of metabolic syndrome on response to medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia Semen parameters from 2002 to 2013 in Korea young population: A preliminary report Simultaneous treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse and stress urinary incontinence by using transobturator four arms polypropylene mesh Influence of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition on simple renal cysts in patients receiving bevacizumab-based chemotherapy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1