The case against primary endoscopic realignment of pelvic fracture urethral injuries

12Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives To review previous reports and present our experience on the outcomes after treating pelvic fracture urethral injuries (PFUIs) with primary endoscopic realignment (PER) vs. placing a suprapubic tube (SPT) with elective bulbomembranous anastomotic urethroplasty (BMAU). Methods We reviewed previous reports and identified articles that reported outcomes after PER vs. SPT and elective BMAU for patients who sustained PFUIs. We also present our institutional experience of treating patients who were referred after undergoing either form of treatment. Results The success rates for PER after PFUI are wide-ranging (11-86%), with variable definitions for a successful outcome. At our institution, for patients treated by SPT/BMAU, the mean time to a definitive resolution of stenosis was dramatically shorter (6 months, range 3-15) than for those treated with PER (122 months, range 4-574; P < 0.01). The vast majority of patients treated by PER required multiple endoscopic urethral interventions (median 4, range 1-36;P < 0.01) and/or had various other adverse events that were rare among the SPT/BMAU group (14/17, 82%, vs. 2/23, 9%;P < 0.05). Conclusion While PER occasionally results in urethral patency with no need for further intervention, the risk of delay in definitive treatment and the potential for adverse events have led to a preference for SPT and elective BMAU at our institution.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tausch, T. J., & Morey, A. F. (2015). The case against primary endoscopic realignment of pelvic fracture urethral injuries. Arab Journal of Urology, 13(1), 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2014.12.005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free