4.5 Article

Rectal perforation after aquablation of the prostate: lessons learned the hard way

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 9, Pages 3441-3446

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03660-2

Keywords

Aquablation; Endoscopy; Rectal perforation; Ultrasound

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This report presents two cases of rectal perforation after aquablation treatment for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Delayed diagnosis complicates the treatment of this rare complication, highlighting the importance of routine rectoscopy following aquablation procedures. Immediate rectoscopy identified the perforation during the second case, demonstrating the need for prompt intervention in such cases.
Introduction Transurethral resection of the prostate and open prostatectomy have been the standard of care for the surgical treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) over decades. New emerging techniques for the surgical management of BPO have been currently introduced, but might be associated with new, unusual complications. Methods We herewith report on two patients with a rectal perforation after aquablation treatment of BPO. Results In the first case, the diagnosis was made 2 days after the aquablation procedure due to unspecific postoperative symptoms. A complex combined open/endoscopic repair of the defect was carried out thereafter. As a consequence, a rectoscopy was routinely performed since then following each aquablation procedure. In the second case, intraoperative rectoscopy after uneventful aquablation revealed the rectal perforation. The perforation was clipped immediately with an over the scope-clip by colonoscopy. Conclusions These two cases of a rectal perforation after aquablation of the prostate demonstrate an unusual complication and its complex management. Diagnostic delay complicates its treatment. Therefore, immediate rectoscopy should be performed routinely after the aquablation procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available