Search

Background: Rectourethral fistulas (RUFs) represent an uncommon complication of pelvic surgery, especially radical prostatectomy. To date there is no standardised treatment for managing RUFs. This represents a challenge for surgeons, mainly because of the potential recurrence risk., Objective: To describe our minimally invasive transanal repair (MITAR) of RUFs and to assess its safety and outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: We retrospectively evaluated 12 patients who underwent MITAR of RUF at our centre from October 2008 to December 2014. Exclusion criteria were a fistula diameter greater than 1.5cm, sepsis, and/or faecaluria., Surgical Procedure: After fistula identification through cystoscopy and 5F-catheter positioning within the fistula, MITAR is performed using laparoscopic instruments introduced through Parks' anal retractor. The fibrotic margins of the fistula are carefully dissected by a lozenge incision of the rectal wall, parallel to the rectal axis. Under the healthy flap of the rectal wall the urothelium is located and the fistulous tract is sutured with interrupted stitches. After a leakage test of the bladder, the rectal wall is sutured with interrupted stitches. Electrocoagulation is never used during this procedure., Measurements: Fistula closure, postoperative complications, and recurrence., Results and Limitations: Median follow-up was 21 (range, 12-74) mo. Median operative time was 58 (range, 50-70) min. Median hospital stay was 1.5 (range, 1-4) d. Early surgical complications occurred in one patient (8.3%). Recurrence did not occur in any of the cases. Limitations included retrospective analysis, small case load, and lack of experience with radiation-induced fustulas., Conclusions: MITAR is a safe, effective, and reproducible procedure. Its advantages are low morbidity and quick recovery, and no need for a colostomy., Patient Summary: We studied the treatment of rectourethral fistulas. Our technique, transanally performed using laparoscopic instruments, was found to be safe, feasible, and effective, with limited risk of complications., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Aim: In men with adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy, the most appropriate timing to administer radiotherapy (RT) remains a topic of debate. We analyzed in terms of efficacy, prognostic factors and toxicity the two therapeutic strategies: immediate postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) and salvage radiotherapy (SART)., Materials and Methods: Between January 1995 and November 2010, 307 patients underwent adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy, after prostatectomy., Results: In the PORT group, 42 patients (20.7 %) had biochemical failure, with a median time to biochemical failure of 1.8 years; two parameters (age at diagnosis and PSA pre-RT) resulted to be significant at the survival analysis for overall survival (p = 0.003 and p = 0.046, respectively). In the SART group, 33 patients (31.7 %) had biochemical relapse; sixteen patients died of prostate cancer; postoperative hormones therapy, conformal radiotherapy and level of PSA pre-RT >1.0 ng/ml resulted to be significant at the survival analysis, p = 0.009, p = 0.039 and p = 0.002, respectively., Conclusion: Our study is limited by its retrospective and nonrandomized design. As such, decisions to treat with adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy and the time to initiate therapy were based on patient preference and physician counseling. Our recommendation is to suggest adjuvant radiotherapy for all patients with adverse prognostic factors and to reserve salvage radiotherapy for low-risk patients, when the biochemical recurrence occurs.

Renal transplant recipients are a population usually considered at a higher risk of malignancies, mostly skin cancer and lymphoproliferative disorder. In recent years, prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients has been becoming more frequent. This is probably due to the growing age and the longer survival of the transplanted patients. We report the case of a 50-year-old man with prostate cancer and renal allograft, who received radiotherapy after prostatectomy at the Institute of Radiotherapy of the University of Florence. Radiotherapy is part of the standard treatment for many cases of prostate cancer. According to the few series reported in the literature and also to our experience, radiation therapy is feasible also in renal transplant recipients with accurate treatment planning.

Objective: To report the oncological outcome of 106 patients who had locally advanced prostate cancer with microscopic bladder neck invasion, identified in a series of 1129 patients surgically treated with retropubic radical prostatectomy over a 12-year period., Patients and Methods: All specimens were reviewed. Microscopic bladder neck invasion was defined as the presence of neoplastic cells within the smooth muscle bundles of the bladder neck, with no accompanying prostatic glandular tissue on the corresponding slide. Survival was analysed for different subgroups in relation to several variables., Results: The follow-up (median 7.2 years, mean 6.68, range 0.3-14) was available for 106 patients with microscopic bladder neck invasion. Seminal vesicle invasion was present in 69.8% of the cases, lymph node involvement in 29.2%, apex infiltration in 31.8%, and positive surgical margins in 23.6%. Biochemical progression occurred in 61 (57.5%) patients, and 25 of them died from cancer. The mean (sd) biochemical progression-free survival was 0.68 (0.05), 0.59 (0.05), 0.40 (0.05) and 0.38 (0.05) at 1, 2, 5 and 10 years, respectively. Age, Gleason score and lymph node invasion were independent prognostic factors on multivariate analysis. Overall and cancer-specific survival rates were 0.75 (0.04) and 0.80 (0.04) at 5 years and 0.57 (0.04) and 0.75 (0.04) at 10 years, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node involvement and surgical Gleason score > or =8 significantly increased the risk of death. On multivariate analysis only the surgical Gleason score had an independent prognostic role with regard to overall survival (P = 0.01; odds ratio 2.82, 95% confidence interval 1.2-6.4) and cancer-specific survival (P < 0.001; 8.6, 2.5-28.8)., Conclusions: In this series, overall and cancer-specific survival rates were comparable to those reported for surgically treated cT3 prostate cancers. The lack of need for external urinary diversion during the entire follow-up significantly contributed to the patients' quality of life.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of association of duloxetine and rehabilitation compared with rehabilitation alone in men with SUI after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), and to compare continence rate even after planned duloxetine suspension., Methods: After catheter removal, 112 patients were randomized to receive rehabilitation and duloxetine (group A) or rehabilitation alone (group B), for 16 wk., Inclusion Criteria: postprostatectomy SUI with daily incontinent episodes frequency (IEF) of four or greater. After 16 wk both groups suspended duloxetine/placebo and continued rehabilitation. All patients completed incontinence quality of life (I-QoL) questionnaire and bladder diary. Wilcoxon test was used to analyse changes in IEF and in I-QoL score; Fisher exact test was used to compare continent patients between the groups., Results: Adverse events for duloxetine was 15.2%. 102 men completed the study. There was a significant decrease in pad use in group A. After 16 wk, 39 patients versus 27 were dry (p=0.007). At 20 wk, 4 wk after planned interruption of duloxetine, we observed a U-turn, 23 patients were completely dry in group A versus 38 in group B (p=0.008). Whereas, after 24 wk, 31 in group A versus 41 in group B were dry (p=0.08). The decrease in IEF and improvements in I-QoL scores were significantly greater in group A for the first 16 wk., Conclusions: The data suggest that combination therapy might provide another treatment option for SUI in men that might increase the percentage of early postsurgery continence.