Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2015 Jun;56(6):443-8.
doi: 10.4111/kju.2015.56.6.443. Epub 2015 Jun 1.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes between running versus interrupted vesicourethral anastomosis in open radical prostatectomy: A single-surgeon experience

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of perioperative outcomes between running versus interrupted vesicourethral anastomosis in open radical prostatectomy: A single-surgeon experience

Ju Hyun Lim et al. Korean J Urol. 2015 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare perioperative outcomes between running and interrupted vesicourethral anastomosis in open radical prostatectomy (RP).

Materials and methods: The medical records of 112 patients who underwent open RP for prostate cancer at our institution from 2006 to 2008 by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were measured.

Results: Of 112 consecutive patients, 62 patients underwent vesicourethral anastomosis by use of the running technique, whereas 50 patients underwent anastomosis with the interrupted technique. The groups did not differ significantly in age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, or pathologic findings. The intraoperative extravasation rate was significantly lower in the running group (8.1% vs. 24.0%, p=0.01). The mean anastomosis time was 15.1±5.3 and 19.3±4.6 minutes in the running and interrupted groups, respectively (p=0.04). The rates of postoperative extravasation were similar for both groups (6.4% vs. 10.0%, p=0.12). The duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in the running group (9.0±3.0 days vs. 12.9±6.4 days, p<0.01). The rate of urinary retention after catheter removal and the rate of bladder neck contracture were not significantly different between the two groups. The rate of urinary continence at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after RP was also similar in both groups.

Conclusions: Both anastomosis techniques provided similar functional results and a similar rate of postoperative urine extravasation. However, running vesicourethral anastomosis decreased the rate of intraoperative extravasation and time for anastomosis, without increasing the risk of urinary retention or bladder neck contracture.

Keywords: Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms; Surgical anastomosis; Urine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The authors have nothing to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. (A-E) Schematic diagram for running vesicourethral anastomosis technique using nephrostomy catheter.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Igel TC, Barrett DM, Rife CC. Comparison of techniques for vesicourethral anastomosis: simple direct versus modified Vest traction sutures. Urology. 1988;31:474–477. - PubMed
    1. Surya BV, Provet J, Johanson KE, Brown J. Anastomotic strictures following radical prostatectomy: risk factors and management. J Urol. 1990;143:755–758. - PubMed
    1. Lieber D, Tran V, Belani J, Ames C, Morissey K, Yan Y, et al. Comparison of running and interrupted vesicourethral anastomoses in a porcine model. J Endourol. 2005;19:1109–1113. - PubMed
    1. Poulakis V, Skriapas K, de Vries R, Dillenburg W, Witzsch U, Becht E. Vesicourethral anastomosis during endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison between the single-knot running and interrupted technique. Urology. 2006;68:1284–1289. - PubMed
    1. Harpster LE, Brien J. Initial results using a running vesicourethral anastomosis following open radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;177:118–122. - PubMed

Publication types