| Literature DB >> 35955973 |
Samantha W Nealon1, Raj R Bhanvadia1, Shervin Badkhshan1, Sarah C Sanders1, Steven J Hudak1, Allen F Morey1.
Abstract
To present our 12-year experience using an endoscopic approach to manage bladder neck contracture (BNC) without adjunctive intralesional agents and compare it to published series not incorporating them, we retrospectively reviewed 123 patients treated for BNC from 2008 to 2020. All underwent 24 Fr balloon dilation followed by transurethral incision of BNC (TUIBNC) with deep incisions at 3 and 9 o'clock using a Collins knife without the use of intralesional injections. Success was defined as a patent bladder neck and 16 Fr cystoscope passage into the bladder two months later. Most with recurrent BNC underwent repeat TUIBNC. Success rates, demographics, and BNC characteristics were analyzed. The etiology of BNC in our cohort was most commonly radical prostatectomy with or without radiation (36/123, 29.3%, 40/123, 32.5%). Some had BNC treatment prior to referral (30/123, 24.4%). At 12-month follow-up, bladder neck patency was observed in 101/123 (82.1%) after one TUIBNC. An additional 15 patients (116/123, 94.3%) had success after two TUIBNCs. On univariate and multivariate analyses, ≥2 endoscopic treatments was the only factor associated with failure. TUIBNC via balloon dilation and deep bilateral incisions without the use of adjunctive intralesional injections has a high patency rate. History of two or more prior endoscopic procedures is associated with failure.Entities:
Keywords: adjunctive intralesional injections; artificial urinary sphincter; balloon dilation; transurethral incision of bladder neck contracture
Year: 2022 PMID: 35955973 PMCID: PMC9369124 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11154355
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.964
Univariate analysis of TUIBNC success vs. failures.
| Variable | Success | Failure | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.13 | ||
| Mean (SD) | 70 (8.0) | 67 (8.0) | |
| Median (IQR) | 70 (65–76) | 68 (63–72) | |
|
| 0.4 | ||
| White | 73 (72.3) | 14 (63.6) | |
| Other | 28 (27.7) | 8 (36.4) | |
|
| 0.6 | ||
| <30 | 65 (64.4) | 13 (59.1) | |
| ≥30 | 36 (35.6) | 9 (40.9) | |
|
| 0.2 | ||
| No | 75 (74.3) | 19 (86.4) | |
| Yes | 26 (25.7) | 3 (13.6) | |
|
| 0.8 | ||
| No | 56 (55.5) | 13 (59.1) | |
| Yes | 45 (44.6) | 9 (40.9) | |
|
| 0.5 | ||
| No | 54 (58.7) | 14 (66.7) | |
| Yes | 38 (41.3) | 7 (33.3) | |
|
|
| ||
| <2 | 98 (97.0) | 17 (77.3) | |
| ≥2 |
|
| |
|
| 0.16 | ||
| No | 44 (43.6) | 6 (27.3) | |
| Yes | 57 (56.4) | 16 (72.7) |
SD—standard deviation, IQR—interquartile range, TUIBNC—transurethral incision of bladder neck contracture, BMI—body mass index.
Prediction of TUIBNC failure—multivariable logistic regression (N = 113).
| Variable | Odds Ratio | 95% Confidence Interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.97 | 0.42 | 0.91 | 1.04 |
|
| ||||
| White | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Other | 2.03 | 0.20 | 0.68 | 6.06 |
|
| ||||
| <30 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| ≥30 | 1.33 | 0.62 | 0.42 | 4.18 |
|
| 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.14 | 2.59 |
|
| 1.44 | 0.52 | 0.47 | 4.46 |
|
| 0.72 | 0.59 | 0.23 | 2.31 |
|
|
|
| 1.85 | 91.03 |
|
| 1.61 | 0.45 | 0.47 | 5.50 |
TUIBNC—transurethral incision of bladder neck contracture, BMI—body mass index.
Summary of studies utilizing endoscopic management of BNC/VUAS with adjunctive therapies.
| Publication | Etiology of BNC/VUAS | N | Treatment of BNC | Dose | Mean (*)/Median (#) Follow-Up | Success Rates: Cystoscopic Documentation of Stable Bladder Neck |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eltahawy | RP | 24 | -Holmium laser incision at 3 and 9 o’clock | 80 mg | 24 mo (*) | 19/24 (83%) |
| Vanni | RP, radiation, TURP | 18 | -Tri- or quadrant CKI of bladder neck | 0.3–0.4 mg/mL | 12 mo (#) | -1 procedure |
| 13/18 (72%) | ||||||
| -2 procedures | ||||||
| 16/18 (89%) | ||||||
| Redshaw | RP, radical cystectomy w/neobladder, radiation, simple prostatectomy, TURP, pelvic fracture | 55 | -3 or 4 deep bladder neck incisions until fat seen; either CKI or Collins knife | Range: dose from 0.4 to 10 mg | 9.2 mo (#) | -1 procedure 32/55 (58%) |
| -MMC injection into wound bed | Concentration from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/mL | -2 procedures 41/55 (75%) | ||||
| Farrell | Radiation- and non-radiation-induced strictures | 37 | -CKI at 3, 6, 9, 12 o’clock followed by MMC injections | 4 mg/ | 23 mo (#) | 28/37 (75.7%) |
| -CIC once daily to maintain patency | 10 mL | |||||
| Nagpal | Highly recurrent BNC (≥1 prior incision procedure) | 40 | -CKI of bladder neck followed by | 0.3–0.4 mg/mL | 20.5 mo (*) | -1 procedure |
| 30/40 (75%) | ||||||
| -2 procedures | ||||||
| 35/40 (87.5%) | ||||||
| Sourial (2017) [ | RP for localized prostate cancer | 29 | - | 0.05 mg/mL | 12 mo (#) | -1 procedure |
| 23/29 (79.3%) | ||||||
| -2 procedures | ||||||
| 25/29 (86.2%) | ||||||
| Zhang | Highly recurrent BNC (≥2 prior procedures) after TURP | 28 | -TUR bladder neck at 2–3 o’clock followed by | 80 mg | 33.6 mo (#) | 26/28 (92.9%) |
| Mann | RP, +/− radiation | 30 | - | 40 mg/2 mL | 33.3 mo (*) | -1 procedure 21/30 (70%) |
| -2 procedures | ||||||
| 25/30 (83.3%) | ||||||
| Rozanski | RP, benign prostate surgery, radiation | 86 | -CKI at 3 and 9 o’clock if EUS involved or CKI at 3, 6, 9, 12 o’clock if EUS not involved | 0.3–0.4 mg/mL | 21 mo (#) | -1 procedure 56/86 (65%) |
| -2 procedures 71/86 (83%) | ||||||
| -3 procedures 77/86 (90%) | ||||||
| Selvaraj | TURP | 10 | -TUR bladder neck | 2 mg | 24 mo (*) | 8/10 (80%) |
| Hacker (2022) [ | RP, EBRT, or RP-EBRT | 51 | -Plasma cut at 3 and 9 o’clock | 2 mg/5 mL | 32 mo (#) | -1 procedure 23/51 (45%) |
| -2 procedures 35/51 (69%) | ||||||
| -3 procedures 40/51 (78%) | ||||||
| -4 procedures 43/51 (84%) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BNC—bladder neck contracture, CKI—cold knife incision, MMC—mitomycin C, CIC—clean intermittent catheterization, TURP—transurethral resection of prostate, DVIU—direct vision internal urethrotomy, EUS—external urinary sphincter, VUAS—vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis, RP—radical prostatectomy, EBRT—external beam radiation therapy, *—mean, #—median.
Average surgical success rates by intralesional injection agent.
| Intralesional Injection Agent | Procedure 1 | Procedure 2 | Procedure 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Eltahawy [ | 19/24 | Not Reported | Not Reported |
| Zhang [ | * 26/28 | Not Reported | Not Reported |
| Mann [ | 21/30 | 25/30 | Not Reported |
|
|
|
| --- |
|
| |||
| Vanni [ | 13/18 | 16/18 | Not Reported |
| Redshaw [ | 32/55 | 41/55 | Not Reported |
| Farrell [ | 28/37 | Not Reported | Not Reported |
| Nagpal [ | 30/40 | 35/40 | Not Reported |
| Sourial [ | 23/29 | 25/29 | Not Reported |
| Rozanski [ | 56/86 | 71/86 | 77/86 |
| Selvaraj [ | 8/10 | Not Reported | Not Reported |
| Hacker [ | 35/51 | 40/51 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 101/123 | 116/123 | Not reported |
|
|
|
| --- |
Values are reported as number of patients per total number. * Study protocol of scheduled repeat cystoscopies and injection of triamcinolone at regular intervals. ε Procedure 4 results not included—only study to include data from 4 separate procedures.