| Literature DB >> 33457232 |
Zeyu Wang1,2, Guoping Song3, Yunfeng Xiao3, Tao Liang1,2, Feixiang Wang4, Yubo Gu1,2, Jiong Zhang1,2, Yuemin Xu1,2, Sanbao Jin1,2, Qiang Fu1,2, Lujie Song1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the correlation between the magnetic resonance urethrography and the surgical approach and complexity for the patients with pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI) by combining the geometry with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Entities:
Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); reconstructive surgical procedures; urethral stenosis; urethroplasty
Year: 2020 PMID: 33457232 PMCID: PMC7807316 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1064
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Androl Urol ISSN: 2223-4683
Figure 1pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters. (A) General situation about PFUI. Bla, bladder; Pro, prostate; Pub, pubis; Rec, rectum; CS, corpus spongiosum; PUr, posterior urethra; AUr, anterior urethra. (B) The parameters of distance associated with the pubis. Arrows, pubourethral vertical distance (PUVD); Triangle, gap distance between two urethral ends (GD); Rhombus, the distance from the inferior margin of the pubis to the proximal urethral end; Star, the distance from the inferior margin of the pubis to the distal urethral end. (C) The parameters of angles associated with the pubis. Angle 1, proximal horizontal angle; Angle 2, distal horizontal angle. (D) The distance associated with the rectum. Triangle, rectourethral median distance (RUMD).
Univariate analysis of demographic information between simple perineal approach group and inferior pubectomy group
| Characteristics and parameters | Simple perineal approach | Inferior pubiotomy | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numbers of patient (%) | 27 (62.8) | 16 (37.2) | |
| Age (SE) | 45.4 (2.4) | 39.2 (2.6) | 0.101 |
| Body mass index (SE) | 22.1 (0.4) | 23.2 (0.7) | 0.159 |
| Rectal injury (%) | |||
| Yes | 12 (44.4) | 5 (31.2) | 0.392 |
| No | 15 (55.6) | 11 (68.8) | |
| Recto-urethral fistula confirmed intraoperatively (%) | 2 (16.7) | 3 (60.0) | |
| Pelvic fracture type | |||
| Level 1 | 4 | 1 | 0.384 |
| Level 2 | 3 | 0 | |
| Level 3 | 12 | 8 | |
| Level 4 | 8 | 7 | |
| Numbers of pubic symphysis diastasis | 7 | 1 | 0.223 |
| Injury time [months, median (QR)] | 6 (7.0) | 12 (162.75) | 0.005 |
| Operation time [minutes, median (QR)] | 140 (20.0) | 165 (55.0) | 0.009 |
| Blood loss [mL, median (QR)] | 150 (180.0) | 280 (512.5) | 0.04 |
| Follow-up time [months, median (QR)] | 15 (5.0) | 18 (7.75) | 0.593 |
| Numbers of patients with satisfactory postoperative uroflow rate (%) | 27 (100.0) | 15 (93.75) | 0.189 |
SE, standard error; QR, quartile range.
Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis of MRI geometric parameters between simple perineal approach group and inferior pubectomy group
| MRI geometric parameters | Univariate analysis | Multivariate logistic regression analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simple perineal approach | Inferior pubiotomy | P | OR | 95% CI | P | ||
| Gap distance (cm, SE) | 1.3 (0.1) | 2.1 (0.2) | <0.001 | 2.33 | 1.30–4.17 | 0.005 | |
| Pubourethral vertical distance (cm, SE) | 1.6 (0.1) | 1.2 (0.1) | 0.039 | 0.56 | 0.36–0.88 | 0.011 | |
| Proximal pubourethral distance (cm, SE) | 1.9 (0.1) | 2.2 (0.3) | 0.357 | ||||
| Distal pubourethral distance (cm, SE) | 1.9 (0.1) | 1.6 (0.2) | 0.284 | ||||
| Proximal horizontal angle (degree, SE) | −11.9 (4.9) | −30.1 (4.9) | 0.018 | 1.05 | 0.98–1.13 | 0.193 | |
| Distal horizontal angle (degree, SE) | 31.9 (4.4) | 31.5 (7.3) | 0.967 | ||||
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; SE, standard error.
Figure 2Urethral stenosis in different imaging examinations. (A,B) The urethrogram and MR urethrography of a same patient. Neither of them had a complete urethral filling. However, the urethra can be determined by the signal difference between urethral tissue and prostate tissue in MR urethrography. (C,D) Sagittal T2W sequence and sagittal earlier scanning of enhanced T1W sequence of another patient. The proximal urethral end can be recognized easily in (D) because of the well-established urethral mucosa.
Figure 3The two sequences of figures belonged to two patients. The figures were preoperative urethrogram, preoperative MR urethrography, intraoperative surgical approach and postoperative urethrogram respectively. Patient A underwent a corporal splitting with a 1.2 cm gap distance and 2.4 cm pubourethral vertical distance. Patient B underwent an inferior pubectomy with a 1.6 cm gap distance and 0.9 cm pubourethral vertical distance. Both of them had a satisfactory urinary flow after the delayed anastomotic urethroplasty.