Posters 12: Neurogenic Bladder, GU Trauma and Reconstruction

Sunday June 26, 2022 from 07:30 to 09:00

Room: Aspen

MP-12.3 Urinary tract reconstruction with enterocystoplasty after radiation for pelvic cancer

Sender Herschorn

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Abstract

Urinary tract reconstruction with enterocystoplasty after radiation for pelvic cancer

Sender Herschorn1, Jennifer A. Locke1.

1Surgery/Urology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

University of Toronto Research Program in Functional Urology.

Introduction: As an alternative to cystectomy after radiation (RT), enterocystoplasty (EC) ± ureteral reimplantation or continent catheterizable channel (CC) brings the potential benefit of preserving the lower urinary tract (LUT). We report outcomes in all patients who underwent EC after RT.

Methods: This is a retrospective series of all post-RT patients who underwent EC for reconstruction from 1994–2021. Complications and functional results were recorded.

Results: Thirty-six patients (18 women,18 men) were identified. Ten patients, post-chemo-RT for colorectal cancer, underwent EC after partial cystectomy ± ureterectomy (group 1). Twenty-six after RT for prostate (n=7), gynecologic (n=13), colorectal (n=5), and liposarcoma (n=1) had surgery due to RT complications (group 2). The mean age was 58 years (median 58.5, range 33–76). All patients had EC and 24 (67%) had simultaneous ureteral reimplants into an intestinal limb (n=17) or into the bladder (n=7), with 16 having bilateral reimplants. Reimplants were done for post-tumor obstruction (group 1) or post-RT (group 2). Eight in group 2 had simultaneous CCC. The median length of stay (LOS) was nine days (4–25) and was shorter in group 2 vs. group 1; 8 (interquartile range [IQR] 6–10) vs. 13 (IQR 10–14) (p=0.0039). No <30 days surgical reintervention was prompted by the reconstruction. After a median of 38.5 months (range 2–195), nine patients (29%) required interventions, including four operations (one parastomal hernia, one vesicovaginal, two vesico-cutaneous fistulae), two ureteral anastomotic stricture dilations, and three cystolapaxies. Reintervention rate was similar in the groups. Twenty-three of 28 non-stoma patients void spontaneously, three perform intermittent catheterization, and two have catheters. Seven of 8 CCC patients do intermittent catheterization and one is awaiting vesicocutaneous fistula repair with a catheter. Thirty-two of   36 patients considered their management to be successful. 

Conclusions: Prior pelvic RT is not a contraindication to EC with or without ureteral reimplantation and/or CCC. Acceptable functional outcomes and morbidity can be achieved.

 



© 2024 CUA 77th Annual Meeting