Urethroplasty After Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE: To report urethroplasty outcomes in men who developed urethral stricture after undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: Our urethroplasty database was reviewed for cases of urethral stricture after radiation therapy for prostate cancer between June 2004 and May 2010. Patient demographics, prostate cancer therapy type, stricture length and location, and type of urethroplasty were obtained. All patients received clinical evaluation, including imaging studies post procedure. Treatment success was defined as no need for repeat surgical intervention. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients underwent urethroplasty for radiation-induced stricture. Previous radiation therapy included external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), radical prostatectomy (RP)/EBRT, EBRT/brachytherapy (BT) and BT alone in 11 (38%), 7 (24%), 7 (24%), and 4 (14%) patients, respectively. Mean age was 69 (±6.9) years. Mean stricture length was 2.6 (±1.6) cm. Anastomotic urethroplasty was performed in 76% patients, buccal mucosal graft in 17%, and perineal flap repair in 7%. Stricture was localized to bulbar urethra in 12 (41%), membranous in 12 (41%), vesicourethra in 3 (10%), and pan-urethral in 2 (7%) patients. Overall success rate was 90%. Median follow-up was 40 months (range 12-83). Time to recurrence ranged from 6-16 months. CONCLUSION: Multiple forms of urethroplasty appear to be viable options in treating radiation-induced urethral stricture. Future studies are needed to examine the durability of repairs

Selective angioembolization for traumatic renal injuries: a survey on clinician practice

PURPOSE: A variety of clinical and imaging findings are used by clinicians to determine utility of renal angioembolization (AE) in managing renal trauma. Our purpose was to investigate specific criteria that clinicians who manage high-grade renal trauma (HGRT) utilize in decision-making for primary or delayed AE. METHODS: A total of 413 urologists and interventional radiologists (IRs) who practice at level 1 or 2 trauma centers within the United States were provided an original survey via email on experience and opinions regarding the utility of AE for HGRT. We described overall practice patterns and assessed differences by clinician type, using the Fisher’s exact test. RESULTS: A total of 79 (20 %) clinicians completed the survey. All clinicians had AE capability for HGRT management. A higher proportion of IRs reported using AE for grade I–II (33 vs. 3 %, p = 0.002), grade III (65 vs. 26 %, p = 0.001), and penetrating injuries (83 vs. 58 %, p = 0.02). A greater proportion of urologists reported using AE for grade V injuries (81 vs. 56 %, p = 0.03). Clinicians most commonly cited computed tomography evidence of active arterial bleeding (97 %), or arteriovenous fistula/pseudoaneurysm (94 %) as indications for primary AE, and 62 % identified concurrent visceral injury as factor that would necessitate surgical intervention. CONCLUSION: In a survey of clinicians, we report that IRs and urologists utilize AE differently when managing HGRT, as a higher proportion of IRs use AE to manage lower grade as well as penetrating injuries. Validation studies are needed to establish algorithms to identify patients with HGRT who would benefit from selective renal AE