Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2021 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 1

Magnetic resonance imaging procedure for pelvic fracture urethral injuries and recto urethral fistulas: A simplified protocol

Pages
35–42
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: MR image acquisition using the “Joshi” protocol provided high-quality anatomical information in PFUI cases to assist with surgical planning.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The urethral gap in pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI) is traditionally assessed using voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) and retrograde urethrogram (RGU).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and methods: A prospective study was conducted at our center from January 2018 to January 2020, involving patients aged >18 years with PFUI, suitable for MRI, and those who gave consent to perform standard RGU, VCUG, and MRI using standard and “Joshi” protocol.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: MR image acquisition using the “Joshi” protocol provided high-quality anatomical information in PFUI cases to assist with surgical planning.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The urethral gap in pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI) is traditionally assessed using voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) and retrograde urethrogram (RGU). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is performed in complex cases. We assessed the refined “Joshi” MRI protocol to evaluate complex urethral defects after PFUI. Material and methods: A prospective study was conducted at our center from January 2018 to January 2020, involving patients aged >18 years with PFUI, suitable for MRI, and those who gave consent to perform standard RGU, VCUG, and MRI using standard and “Joshi” protocol. Forty men were included in the study. Distance between urethral/prostatic stumps was measured. Image quality was scored by four radiologists and four urologists. The surgical approach and type of PFUI repair were noted. We also established the need for inferior pubectomy by assessing the position of the posterior urethra (membranous) in relation to a horizontal line drawn from the lower edge of the pubic bone anteriorly to the rectum posteriorly in a sagittal image. Results: The mean age was 30 years (SD, 5.25; range, 21–43), and the time from injury to imaging was 4 months (3–10 months); 40% of the men underwent crural separation, 57.5%, inferior pubectomy, and 2.5%, crural rerouting. There was a difference of 0.3 to 1.1 cm in the urethral gap measurements between MR images using the standard versus “Joshi” technique. MRI identified complex injuries such as rectourethral fistula, the need for inferior pubectomy, and the orientation of the posterior urethra. Urologists’ and radiologists’ satisfaction scores for the MR images were satisfactory to excellent. If the posterior urethra was over the defined mark, there was a 100% likelihood of inferior pubectomy (23/40 patients). Conclusion: MR image acquisition using the “Joshi” protocol provided high-quality anatomical information in PFUI cases to assist with surgical planning.

🔖

Cite This Article

JOSHI, P. M., DEVANG, D., SHAH, D., JOSHI, D. P., KULKARNI, S. B. (2021). Magnetic resonance imaging procedure for pelvic fracture urethral injuries and recto urethral fistulas: A simplified protocol. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 1, 35–42. https://ajindex.com/articles/411568

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Gómez RG, Mundy T, Dubey D, El-Kassaby AW, Firdaoessaleh, Kodama R. SIU/ICUD consultation on urethral strictures: pelvic fracture urethral injuries. Urology 2014;83(Suppl 3):S48-S58. [Crossref] 2. Demetriades D, Karaiskakis M, Toutouzas K, Alo K, Velmahos G, Chan L. Pelvic fractures. Epidemiology and predictors of associated abdominal injuries and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 2002;195:1- 10. [Crossref] 3. Stein DM, Thum DJ, Barbagli G, Kulkarni S, Sansalone S, Pardeshi A. A geographic analysis of male urethral stricture aetiology and location. BJU Int 2013;112:830-4. [Crossref] 4. Koraitim MM, Marzouk ME, Atta MA, Orabi SS. Risk factors and mechanism of urethral injury in pelvic fractures. Br J Urol 1996;77:876-80. [Crossref] 5. Mouraviev VB, Santucci RA. Cadaveric anatomy of pelvic fracture urethral distraction injury: most injuries are distal to the external urinary sphincter. J Urol 2005;173:869-72. [Crossref] 6. Andrich DE, Day AC, Mundy AR. Proposed mechanisms of lower urinary tract injury in fractures of the pelvic ring. BJU Int 2007;100:567-73. [Crossref] 7. Clark SS, Prudencio RF. Lower urinary tract injuries associated with pelvic fractures. Diagnosis management. Surg Clin N Am 1972;52:183. [Crossref] 8. Koraitim MM. The lessons of 145 posttraumatic posterior urethral strictures treated in 17 years. J Urol 1995;153:63-6. [Crossref] 9. Turner-Warwick R. Prevention of complications resulting from pelvic fracture urethral injuries-and from their surgical management. Urol Clin North Am 1989;16:335-58. 10. Andrich DE, Omalley KJ, Summerton DJ, Greenwell TJ, Mundy AR. The type of urethroplasty for a pelvic fracture urethral distraction defect cannot be predicted preopera- tively. J Urol 2003;170:464-7. [Crossref] 11. Koraitim MM. Post-traumatic posterior urethral strictures: preoperative decision making. Urology 2004;64:228-31. [Crossref] 12. Webster GD, Ramon J. Repair of pelvic fracture posterior urethral defects using an elaborated perineal approach: experience with 74 cases. J Urol 1991;145:744-8. [Crossref] 13. Koraitim MM. On the art of anastomotic posterior urethroplasty: a 27-year experience. J Urol 2005;173:135-9. [Crossref] 14. Joshi PM, Batra V, Kulkarni SB. Controversies in the management of pelvic fracture urethral distraction defects. Turk J Urol 2019;45:1-6. [Crossref] 15. Frimberger D, Mercado-Deane MG, AAP Section on Urology, AAP Section on Radiology. Establishing a Standard Protocol for the Voiding Cystourethrography. Pediatrics 2016;13