Viers, Boyd

ABSTRACT Background There is limited data regarding the surgical outcomes of urosymphyseal fistula (USF) repair with primary repair or autologous tissue transfer. We performed a study to compare outcomes of USF repair with primary repair, VRAM flap, and omental flap. Methods We retrospectively identified patients with a diagnosis of USF who underwent fistula decompression and urinary tract reconstruction. The minimal follow‐up was 3 months. Patients with distal urethral obstruction, radiation cystitis, or a non‐viable sphincter underwent anterior exenteration and flap transfer. Results Fifty‐six patients were included. Eleven patients underwent surgical management for USF using primary repair (19.6%), 34 had omental flap‐based reconstruction (60.8%), and a VRAM flap was used in 11 patients (19.6%). The 90‐day rate of sepsis was lower with omentum flap transposition (3%) compared with VRAM flap (27%) or primary repair (18%, p = 0.041). The rate of fistula recurrence was lower in the omentum flap group compared with USF primary repair (30%) or VRAM flap repair group (27.3%, p = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, USF repair with the omentum flap decreased the odds of fistula recurrence 90 days after surgery compared with primary repair (OR 0.012, p = 0.011) but not when compared with VRAM. Conclusion The omentum flap may offer a better safety profile in terms of decreasing the rate of early sepsis and rate of fistula recurrence for USF repair in comparison to primary repair. There is limited evidence regarding the superiority of the omentum flap to decrease the rate of late fistula recurrence when compared with the VRAM flap.

ABSTRACT Purpose There is limited evidence regarding the optimal timing of urosymphyseal fistula (USF) repair. Our aim was to conduct a comparative analysis evaluating the postoperative complications and surgical outcomes among patients undergoing surgery for USF, comparing those treated in an early versus delayed fashion. Methods Fifty‐eight patients with diagnosis of USF and who underwent fistula decompression, pubic bone resection, and urinary tract reconstruction were included. Patients who underwent USF repair within 100 days of diagnosis were classified as having early repair, while those treated after 100 days were considered to have delayed repair. Results Thirty‐one underwent delayed USF repair (53.4%), while 27 underwent early repair (46.6%). Most patients were male (96.8%). The median age (72 years vs . 69 years, p = 0.13) and mean BMI (28.7 vs . 28.6, p = 0.97) were comparable between groups. The rate of overall 90‐day complications following USF repair was comparable between groups (77.4% vs . 63%, p = 0.228). We did not find a difference between the rates early complications among groups. The rates of long‐term recurrent pain (46.7% vs . 11.1%, p = 0.004), recurrent osteomyelitis (20% vs . 0%, p = 0.014), and fistula (23.3% vs . 3.7%, p = 0.033) were higher in the delayed USF repair group compared to the early USF repair group. The follow up time was similar between groups too (25.43‐months vs . 32.8‐months, p = 0.257). Conclusion While early USF repair might not affect the incidence of early complications within 90 days post‐surgery, it is associated with reduced rates of long‐term recurrent pain, recurrent osteomyelitis, and fistula recurrence compared to delayed USF repair.