The case against primary endoscopic realignment of pelvic fracture urethral injuries

Timothy J. Tausch, Allen F. Morey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)13-16
Number of pages4
JournalArab Journal of Urology
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2015

Fingerprint

Wounds and Injuries
Pathologic Constriction
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

The case against primary endoscopic realignment of pelvic fracture urethral injuries. / Tausch, Timothy J.; Morey, Allen F.

In: Arab Journal of Urology, Vol. 13, No. 1, 01.03.2015, p. 13-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f87136c2878b4c15937460dfa649f741,
title = "The case against primary endoscopic realignment of pelvic fracture urethral injuries",
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.",
author = "Tausch, {Timothy J.} and Morey, {Allen F.}",
year = "2015",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.aju.2014.12.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "13--16",
journal = "Arab Journal of Urology",
issn = "2090-598X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The case against primary endoscopic realignment of pelvic fracture urethral injuries

AU - Tausch, Timothy J.

AU - Morey, Allen F.

PY - 2015/3/1

Y1 - 2015/3/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925247211&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925247211&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.aju.2014.12.005

DO - 10.1016/j.aju.2014.12.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 26019972

AN - SCOPUS:84925247211

VL - 13

SP - 13

EP - 16

JO - Arab Journal of Urology

JF - Arab Journal of Urology

SN - 2090-598X

IS - 1

ER -