An original surgical method for the formation of fascial duplication in the elimination of damage to the anterior rectal wall during prostatectomy

Background. Intraoperative rectal injury in patients undergoing prostatectomy is a severe complication, worsens the quality of life and leads to social maladjustment.

Objective. To develop, substantiate the reproducibility and safety of the technique for the formation of fascial duplication in the elimination of damage to the anterior rectal wall during prostatectomy.

Materials and methods. The authors present a description of the technique and their own experience of retropubic prostatectomy with the formation of fascial duplication in the elimination of damage to the anterior rectal wall in 2 patients with prostate cancer. Patients with intermediate risk of recurrence and progression according to the D'Amico index. The observation period is 6 and 11 months.

Results. Prostatectomy revealed damage to the anterior rectal wall and destruction of the external longitudinal muscular layer of the rectum. The rectal defect was eliminated according to the original method. The duration of the operation is 160 and 140 min. Intraoperative blood loss 350 and 150 ml. The first bowel movement on the 5th day. Removal of the urethral catheter on day 10. The period of hospitalization was 11 and 14 days, no postoperative mortality was noted. No lethal outcomes were noted.

Conclusion. A constructively simple surgical technique for the formation of fascial duplication by local tissues in case of intraoperative injury of the rectum during prostatectomy has been developed and implemented into clinical practice.

1. Axel E.M., Matveev V.B. Statistics of malignant tumors of urinary and male urogenital organs in Russia and the countries of the former USSR. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2019;15(2):15-24. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2019-15-2-15-24.

2. Siegel R.L., Miller K.D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020;70(1):7-30. DOI: org/10.3322/caac.21590.

3. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts& Figures 2020. American Cancer Society, 2020. 71 p.

4. Veliev E.I., Petrov S.B., Loran O.B. et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy: the first Russian experience of 15-year follow-up after surgery. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2013;9(2):57-62. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2013-9-2-57-62.

5. Eastham J.A., Schaeffer E.M. Radical Prostatectomy: Surgical Perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2014. 225 p.

6. Vollstedt A., Hyams E. Extent of lymphadenectomy at time of prostatectomy: an evidencebased approach. Urol Clin North Am 2017;44(4):587-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2017.07.007.

7. Kaprin A.D., Alekseev B.Ya., Rusakov I.G. Atlas of surgeries for malignant tumors of the genitourinary system. Moscow: Prakticheskaya meditsina, 2015. 120 p. (In Russ.).

8. Chernyshev I.V., Abdullin I.I., Prosyannikov M.Yu. et al. Complications of extraperitoneoscopic radical prostatectomies. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2012;8(3):76-79. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2012-8-3-76-79.

9. Barashi N.S., Pearce S.M., Cohen A.J. et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes for rectal injury during radical prostatectomy: a population-based study. Eur Urol Oncol 2018;1(6):501-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.06.00

10. Oncology. National leadership. Eds.: V.I. Chissov, M.I. Davydov. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2013. 576 р. (In Russ.).

11. Petrov S.B., Rakul VA, Galimov R.D. Surgical treatment of prostate cancer. Prakticheskaya onkologiya = Practical Oncology 2008;9(2):83-9. (In Russ.).

12. Redondo C., Rozet F., Velilla G. Complications of radical prostatectomy. Arch Esp Urol 2017;70(9):766-76.

13. Mandel Ph., Linnemannstons A., Chun F. et al. Incidence, risk factors, management, and complications of rectal injuries during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 2018;4(4):554-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.01.008.

14. Tewari A., Sooriakumaran P., Bloch D.A. et al. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.029.

15. Masuda T., Kinoshita H., Nishida S. et al. Rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: detection and management. Int J Urol. 2010;17(5):492-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02510.x.

16. Kheterpal E., Bhandari A., Siddiqui S. et al. Management of rectal injury during robotic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2011;77:976-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.11.045.

17. Wedmid A., Mendoza P., Sharma S. et al. Rectal injury during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: incidence and management. J Urol 2011;186:1928-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.004.

18. Philippou Y., Parker R.A., Volanis D., Gnanapragasam V.J. Comparative oncologic and toxicity outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy versus nonsurgical therapies for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: a meta-regression analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2016;2(2):158-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2015.09.004.

19. Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P.A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2005;240:205-13. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.

20. Timerbulatov V.M., Timerbulatov Sh.V., Timerbulatov M.V. Classification of surgical complications. Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova = Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery 2018;(9):62-7. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia2018090162.

21. Vinnik Yu.S., Kochetova L.V., Markelova N.M. et al. Use of the intestinal suture in abdominal surgery. Fundamental'nye issledovaniya = Basic Research 2014;7(1):177-80. (In Russ.).

22. Shalkov Yu.L. Intestinal sutures and anastomoses in surgical practice. Moscow: BINOM, 2013. 204 p. (In Russ.).

23. Tsarkov P.V., Tulina I.A., Tsugulya P.B. et al. Post-rectectomy choice of preventive intestinal stoma formation method: prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial protocol. Rossiyskiy zhurnal gastroenterologii, gepatologii, koloproktologii = The Russian Journal of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Colo-proctology 2017;27(2):102-10. (In Russ.).

24. Kagan I.I., Kirpatovskiy I.D. Topographic anatomy and operative surgery. Vol. 2. Moscow: GEOTARMedia, 2013. 576 p. (In Russ.).

25. Fernandez J.C., Martinez A., Romero A. Rectal injury during radical surgery of bladder and/or prostate. Actas Urol Esp 1998;22(7):571-4.

26. Schmitges J., Trinh QD., Sun M. Annual prostatectomy volume is related to rectal laceration rate after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2012;79(4):796-803. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.061.

27. Borland R.N., Walsh P.C. The management of rectal injury during radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 1992;147(3):905-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37418-9.

28. Shevlyuk N.N., Khalikova L.V., Khalikov A.A. Morphofunctional characteristic of the greater omentum. Zhurnal anatomii i gistopatologii = Journal of Anatomy and Histopathology 2020;9(2):90-9. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18499/2225-7357-2020-9-2-90-99.

29. Haidl F., Al-Monajjed R. Prostate cancer: surgical complications. Aktuelle Urol 2020;51(5):469-74. DOI: 10.1055/a-1185-8179.

30. Nicola V.D. Omentum a powerful biological source in regenerative surgery. Regen Ther 2019;11:182-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.reth.2019.07.008.