| REDUCING
THE NUMBER OF SUTURES FOR VESICOURETHRAL ANASTOMOSIS IN RADICAL RETROPUBIC
PROSTATECTOMY
(
Download pdf )
EVANGELOS M. MAZARIS,
ELEFTHERIOS CHATZIDARELLIS, IOANNIS M. VARKARAKIS, ATHANASIOS DELLIS,
CHARALAMBOS DELIVELIOTIS
Second Department
of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
To prospectively evaluate the outcome of using a two-suture technique
for the vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA) during radical retropubic prostatectomy
(RRP).
Materials and Methods: Two groups of 50
patients each underwent nerve-sparing RRP for localized prostate cancer
by one surgeon. In one group, the vesicourethral anastomosis was performed
using 2 Vicryl 2-0 stitches placed at the 3- and 9-o’clock positions
and in the other group 6 Vicryl 2-0 stitches were placed at the 2-, 4-,
6-, 8-, 10- and 12-o’clock positions. The intraoperative and perioperative
parameters analyzed were time to perform the VUA, time to remove the drain
and hospitalization. The rate of incontinence, anastomotic stricture and
erectile function were included in the outcome analysis.
Results: The anastomotic time differed statistically
between the 2 groups (mean 3.3 minutes for the 2-suture group and 10.5
minutes for the 6-suture group, p < 0.0001) with similar periods of
drain removal (mean 3.12 days for the 2-suture group and 3.45 days for
the 6-suture group; p = 0.13) and hospitalization (mean 4.66 days for
the 2-suture group and 5.3 days for the 6-suture group; p = 0.09). The
functional outcome was excellent for the 2-suture group with no patient
suffering from incontinence or anastomotic strictures 1 year postoperatively,
while in the 6-suture group there were 2 patients (4%) suffering from
incontinence (2 underwent sling procedure) and 1 patient suffered from
anastomotic stricture.
Conclusion: The low number of sutures in
the 2-suture VUA technique reduces operating times, does not influence
perioperative and intraoperative parameters and results in excellent functional
outcome.
Key
words: prostatic neoplasm; prostatectomy; anastomosis, surgical;
sutures; treatment outcome
Int Braz J Urol. 2009; 35: 158-63
INTRODUCTION
Radical
retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) is one of the treatment modalities recommended
for clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. The better understanding
of pelvic anatomy has led to the development of the anatomic approach
of RRP (1) and to the reduction of specific complications of the operation
such as incontinence, anastomotic stricture and impotence.
One of the critical steps of the operation
that may influence the rate of postoperative complications is the anastomosis
of the bladder to the urethral stump. Historically, the number of six
sutures was described by Walsh (1) to be used for the vesicourethral anastomosis
(VUA). However, this number may vary from four (2) to eight sutures, according
to other experienced surgeons, with adequate functional results (3). A
reduction in the number of sutures used in order to perform the VUA in
radical prostatectomy is now becoming important in the laparoscopic era
where intracorporeal suturing is difficult and intraperitoneal leak could
be a problem. We examined the feasibility of an interrupted two-suture
vesicourethral anastomosis technique and its effect on the outcome of
prostate cancer patients after open radical retropubic prostatectomy.
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
From
September 2005 to October 2006, we prospectively evaluated 100 patients,
divided randomly into two groups of 50 patients each, by consecutive allocation
to each group, who underwent nerve-sparing RRP by a single surgeon, after
obtaining institutional review board approval. Patients who had undergone
preoperative androgen ablation, local radiotherapy, previous transurethral
or suprapubic resection of the prostate or underwent non nerve-sparing
RRP were excluded from the study.
All patients underwent bilateral pelvic
lymphadenectomy and standard nerve-sparing RRP as described by Walsh (1).
The bladder neck was preserved and bladder neck mucosal eversion was performed
routinely using 4 to 6 circumferential absorbable sutures 3-0. In one
group the vesicourethral anastomosis was performed using 2 Vicryl (Ethicon,
NJ, USA) 2-0 stitches placed at the 3- and 9-o’clock positions and
in the other group 6 Vicryl 2-0 stitches were placed at the 2-, 4-, 6-,
8-, 10- and 12-o’clock positions. The VUA was carried-out on a 22F
3-way Couvelaire catheter, which was removed on the 10th postoperative
day without performing a cystogram. Two drains were also routinely placed
laterally to the anastomosis. They were removed when daily drain output
was less than 50 mL.
The following intraoperative and postoperative
parameters were recorded: time to perform VUA, blood loss, pre-and postoperative
hemoglobin, drain output, time to drain removal and consequent transfusions.
Follow-up consisted of visits every 3 months for 1 year, during which
physical examination was performed and PSA values measured. All patients
were encouraged to execute pelvic floor exercises (Kegel) (4) and phosphodiesterase-5
(PDE5) inhibitors were also administered early postoperatively (5). Continence
was evaluated by the number of pads used daily as reported by the patients
during the follow-up visits. They were defined as continent when no more
than one pad daily was required (6).
The statistical analysis was performed by
Student’s t-test for quantitative data and the chi-square test for
categorical data. Results were considered statistically significant at
p ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS
Patient
characteristics such as age, PSA value, body mass index, prostate volume
measured by transrectal ultrasound and Gleason score are presented in
Table-1.
The analysis of the intraoperative parameters
revealed a mean time to perform the vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA) of
3.3 minutes for the 2-suture technique and 10.5 minutes for the 6-suture
technique (Table-2). Urinary leakage occurred in 4 patients (8%) in each
of the two groups while the mean volume was 1125 mL for the 2-suture technique
compared with a significantly less mean volume of leakage of 980 mL for
the 6-suture technique. Urinary leakage in both groups subsided spontaneously
with patient mobilization and all drains in these patients had been removed
by the 3rd or 4th postoperative day, thus all patients were discharged
without drains.
During the postoperative course the mean
time to ambulation was 1 day for the 2-suture technique and 1.02 days
for the 6-suture technique, the mean time to oral intake was 1.22 (range
1-4) days and 1.15 (range 1-3) days respectively. Timescale to drain removal
and patient discharge did not differ statistically between the two groups
(Table-2).
No significant postoperative bleeding was
observed as only 2 patients (4%) were transfused with 3 blood units in
total in each group postoperatively.
Regarding the 2-suture technique, no patient
suffered from incontinence 1 year postoperatively, while with the 6-suture
technique, 2 (4%) patients were incontinent in the same period and a male
sling was placed successfully. No patient suffered from anastomotic stricture
with the 2-suture technique while 1 patient suffered from stricture with
the 6-suture technique, which was endoscopically treated (Table-2).
COMMENTS
The
creation of the VUA is a crucial step in RRP since it affects future outcomes
and thus the quality of life of such patients postoperatively. It seems
that prevention of anastomotic stricture (2) and urinary continence (7)
depends on a well-healed vesicourethral anastomosis. The general principle
to achieve this, regardless of the anastomotic technique used, is a watertight,
tension-free anastomosis with mucosal-to-mucosal coaptation and proper
urethral alignment (8).
Recently, a VUA technique using two interrupted
sutures with equal outcomes while offering reduced anastomotic time was
reported (6). The task of performing a 2-suture technique for the VUA
is not only convenient for open RRP but may also simplify the procedure
for the laparoscopic approach since suturing during laparoscopy is more
challenging. Leakage was significantly higher in the 2-suture technique;
however, it stopped spontaneously with ambulation and was drained effectively,
thus resulting in no patients with incontinence or anastomotic stricture.
Our two-suture technique for the VUA is faster and less challenging than
using a four (2), six (1) or eight-suture (3) or even a running suture
(9) technique since it is obvious that by using more sutures is more time-consuming
and complicated. Some surgeons place their sutures in the urethra before
dividing it completely and leave them on the surgical table until the
bladder neck is ready for the VUA; while others place their sutures creating
the VUA after the prostate has been removed. In the first case sometimes
sutures become entangled increasing the surgical time. It is evident that
by using only two sutures entanglement is more difficult and disentanglement
easier. Furthermore, in contrast to a recent study using the two-suture
technique (6) the placement of sutures in the 3 and 9 o’clock positions
instead of the 6 and 12 o’clock, avoids the rectum and the rectourethralis
muscle dorsally and branches of the Santorini plexus anteriorly.
Moreover, in the present series preservation
of the bladder neck was selected since earlier return to continence and
a reduction in the stricture rate have been reported when using such technique
(10). We also everted the bladder mucosa permitting a close coaptation
with the urethral mucosa and tried to avoid interposition of perivesical
fat when tying the sutures (11).
In the present series no patient with the
2-suture and 1 patient with the 6-suture technique developed an anastomotic
stricture, which rates vary in the literature from 0.5% to 32% (12), despite
having 4 patients in each group with urinary leak in the early postoperative
period, which has been described as a risk factor (13) for stricture formation.
The incidence of urinary leak for the 2-suture technique was higher compared
with the 6-suture technique in accordance with other studies (6). In all
of these patients the leak ceased spontaneously with ambulation and an
unobstructed urethral catheter. On the contrary, it seems that the degree
of tightness of the anastomosis (9) with a compromised vascular supply
to the bladder neck and the urethra is a predisposing factor for stricture
formation, thus by using two sutures we avoid such tightness. Furthermore,
we used a 3-way wide catheter of 22F without traction, in order to achieve
healing of the suture line since it has been proven that the incidence
of anastomotic stricture is reduced with a wider caliber of the anastomosis
(14). A large bore catheter results in better drainage, which decreases
the potential for leakage. Postoperative bleeding was also minimal in
our patients, thus avoiding another risk factor for stricture formation.
By using drains, especially large ones in the early postoperative period,
better removal of fluid or blood from the anastomotic site is achieved,
in order to avoid fibrosis and stricture formation.
The rates of incontinence after RRP have
been reported from 2.5% to 87% (15), yet a 12-month period is necessary
before defining a patient’s continence status (16). Several risk
factors have been reported to contribute to continence after RRP such
as patient age, disease stage, surgical technique, preoperative continence
and previous transurethral resection of the prostate (17). In our series
the rate of incontinence was very low, consistent with other reports (9)
and it is noteworthy that no patient suffered from incontinence 1 year
after the operation with the 2-suture technique while 2 patients were
incontinent with the 6-suture technique.
In order to preserve continence, the membranous
urethra, the sphincter mechanism and its innervations as well as the anastomotic
blood supply should be preserved. The “continence nerves”
seem to be damaged during blunt dissection of the posterior periurethral
tissues near the junction of the levator ani muscle and during placement
of the anastomotic sutures at the 5- and 7-o’clock positions (6).
By placing sutures in the 3- and 9-o’clock positions we can avoid
such nerves. Additionally, by using the nerve-sparing procedure we improved
our continence rates (18), which are possibly attributed to the meticulous
dissection of the nerves from the apex of the prostate instead of the
preservation of the neurovascular bundle. Furthermore, preservation of
the bladder neck especially of its circular fibers, as in this series
of patients, contributes to return of continence (19).
In this initial number of patients we removed
the catheter after 10 days although being aware of the accumulating reports
of early catheter removal (20). Nevertheless, we must be aware that there
are differences in the surgical technique and the number of sutures used
for the VUA. Prospective comparative studies with several techniques for
VUA are required, in order to confirm the superior results of a 2-suture
technique. However, we must acknowledge that these 50 patients, with this
specific surgical technique of reduced number of sutures for the VUA,
had excellent outcome with minimal complications compared with the same
number of patients with a 6-suture technique, thus, proving effective,
less challenging and convenient for use in open RRP. We must also acknowledge
that in our study patients were discharged in their majority between the
4th and 5th postoperative day, due to special circumstances existing in
our country (long distance from permanent residence, National Health System
environment, no pressure by insurance companies, etc).
CONCLUSION
The
reduced number of sutures used for the VUA in the present study reduced
surgical time safely, is easier to perform and achieved excellent functional
outcomes. Although urinary extravasation was higher in the intraoperative
period, it was managed conservatively and stopped spontaneously having
no effect on stricture formation. The reduced number of sutures for the
VUA seems to have a lower incidence of incontinence and anastomotic stricture
resulting in minimal late complications after RRP.
CONFLICT OF
INTEREST
None
declared.
REFERENCES
- Walsh PC: Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical
technique. J Urol. 1998; 160: 2418-24.
- Borboroglu PG, Sands JP, Roberts JL, Amling CL: Risk factors for
vesicourethral anastomotic stricture after radical prostatectomy. Urology.
2000; 56: 96-100.
- Srougi M, Nesrallah LJ, Kauffmann JR, Nesrallah A, Leite KR: Urinary
continence and pathological outcome after bladder neck preservation
during radical retropubic prostatectomy: a randomized prospective trial.
J Urol. 2001; 165: 815-8.
- Van Kampen M, De Weerdt W, Van Poppel H, De Ridder D, Feys H, Baert
L: Effect of pelvic-floor re-education on duration and degree of incontinence
after radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet.
2000; 355: 98-102.
- Montorsi F, Briganti A, Salonia A, Rigatti P, Burnett AL: Current
and future strategies for preventing and managing erectile dysfunction
following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2004; 45: 123-33.
- Gallo L, Perdonà S, Autorino R, Menna L, Claudio L, Marra
L, et al.: Vesicourethral anastomosis during radical retropubic prostatectomy:
does the number of sutures matter? Urology. 2007; 69: 547-51.
- Steiner MS, Morton RA, Walsh PC: Impact of anatomical radical prostatectomy
on urinary continence. J Urol. 1991; 145: 512-4; discussion 514-5.
- Walsh PC, Quinlan DM, Morton RA, Steiner MS: Radical retropubic prostatectomy.
Improved anastomosis and urinary continence. Urol Clin North Am. 1990;
17: 679-84.
- Miki T, Okihara K, Ukimura O, Usijima S, Yoneda K, Mizutani Y, et
al.: Running suture for vesicourethral anastomosis in minilaparotomy
radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2006; 67: 410-2.
- Shelfo SW, Obek C, Soloway MS: Update on bladder neck preservation
during radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact on pathologic outcome,
anastomotic strictures, and continence. Urology. 1998; 51: 73-8.
- Tomschi W, Suster G, Höltl W: Bladder neck strictures after
radical retropubic prostatectomy: still an unsolved problem. Br J Urol.
1998; 81: 823-6.
- Popken G, Sommerkamp H, Schultze-Seemann W, Wetterauer U, Katzenwadel
A: Anastomotic stricture after radical prostatectomy. Incidence, findings
and treatment. Eur Urol. 1998; 33: 382-6.
- Surya BV, Provet J, Johanson KE, Brown J: Anastomotic strictures
following radical prostatectomy: risk factors and management. J Urol.
1990; 143: 755-8.
- McCarthy J, Catalona W: Nerve Sparing Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy.
In: Marshall F (ed.), Textbook of Operative Urology, 1st ed., Philadelphia,
WB Saunders. 1996, pp. 537-44.
- Lepor H, Kaci L, Xue X: Continence following radical retropubic prostatectomy
using self-reporting instruments. J Urol. 2004; 171: 1212-5.
- Poore RE, McCullough DL, Jarow JP: Puboprostatic ligament sparing
improves urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy.
Urology. 1998; 51: 67-72.
- Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Rogers E, Goad JR, Ohori M, Boone TB, et al.:
Risk factors for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. J
Urol. 1996; 156: 1707-13.
- Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Fleischmann A, Thalmann GN, Schumacher M,
Studer UE: Nerve sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy--does
it have an impact on urinary continence? J Urol. 2006; 176: 189-95.
- Selli C, De Antoni P, Moro U, Macchiarella A, Giannarini G, Crisci
A: Role of bladder neck preservation in urinary continence following
radical retropubic prostatectomy. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004; 38: 32-7.
- Patel R, Lepor H: Removal of urinary catheter on postoperative day
3 or 4 after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2003; 61: 156-60.
____________________
Accepted
after revision:
November 14, 2008
________________________
Correspondence address:
Dr. Evangelos Mazaris
89 Agiou Ioannou Street
Agia Paraskevi, Athens, 15342, Greece
Fax: + 30 210 804-4703
E-mail: evmazaris@yahoo.gr |