Anastomotic strictures following radical prostatectomy: Insights into incidence, effectiveness of intervention, effect on continence, and factors predisposing to occurrence

Objectives. To examine the incidence, effectiveness of intervention, effect on continence, and factors predisposing to the occurrence of anastomotic strictures following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Methods. Between January 1994 and June 1999, 753 radical retropubic prostatectomies were performed by a single surgeon. Anastomotic strictures were managed by dilatation followed by a self-catheterization regimen. Dilatations were repeated unless more than three dilatations were required over a 9-month interval. A control group representing a randomly selected group of men who did not develop anastomotic strictures was identified. The largest width of the midline vertical abdominal scar was measured. Results. Of the 753 radical retropubic prostatectomies, 36 (4.8%) developed an anastomotic stricture. The mean time interval between the surgical procedure and diagnosis of the stricture was 4.22 months. Of the 26 cases of anastomotic strictures with at least 1-year follow-up, 24 (92.3%) were managed successfully by dilatations alone. No baseline characteristics before surgery were associated with the development of a stricture. The maximal scar width was the only factor that was associated with the development of a stricture in this study. Men with a maximal scar of greater than 10 mm were eight times more likely to develop strictures than men with smaller scars. The percentage of men who required protective pads 1 year following radical retropubic prostatectomy in the control and stricture groups was 12.5% and 46.2%, respectively. Conclusions. Anastomotic strictures are relatively rare following radical prostatectomy and have a negative effect on the development of continence. Most men are successfully managed with dilatations alone. The development of anastomotic strictures in some men appears to be related to a generalized hypertrophic wound-healing mechanism. UROLOGY 57: 742-746, 2001. (C) 2001, Elsevier Science Inc.