Advertisement

Propeller Flap Perineal Urethrostomy Revision

Published:December 10, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.12.002

      OBJECTIVE

      To describe a technique for perineal urethrostomy (PU) revision using a posterior thigh propeller flap for a complex repair at high risk for stenosis.

      METHODS

      Our technique utilizes the consistent posterior thigh perforators for a local flap with ideal length and thickness for repair. The stenotic PU is incised. Potential flaps are marked around a perforator blood supply closest to the defect. The flap is then elevated and rotated on its pedicle with its apex placed directly in the defect. Absorbable sutures partially tubularize the flap apex at the level of the urethrotomy which is calibrated to 30 Fr. We subsequently monitored the patient's clinical progress.

      RESULTS

      With 17 months of follow-up the patient is voiding well without complaint, reports improved quality of life with a patent PU. Post void residuals have been less than 100cc. The patient, who has had a long history of urinary tract infections requiring hospitalization, has only reported one infection during follow up which was treated as an out-patient.

      CONCLUSION

      For challenging PU revisions a distant local propeller flap of healthy tissue outside the zone of injury is the ideal choice for length, thickness, and minimal morbidity resulting in excellent clinical results for our patient.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Belsante MJ
        • Selph JP
        • Peterson AC
        The contemporary management of urethral strictures in men resulting from lichen sclerosus.
        Transl Androl Urol. 2015; 4: 22-28
        • Summerton DJ
        • Campbell A
        • Minhas S
        • et al.
        Reconstructive surgery in penile trauma and cancer.
        Nat Rev Urol. 2005; 2: 391
        • Peterson AC
        • Palminteri E
        • Lazzeri M
        • et al.
        Heroic measures may not always be justified in extensive urethral stricture due to lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans).
        Urology. 2004; 64: 565-568
        • Barbagli G
        • De Angelis M
        • Romano G
        • et al.
        Clinical outcome and quality of life assessment in patients treated with perineal urethrostomy for anterior urethral stricture disease.
        J Urol. 2009; 182: 548-557
        • Wessells H
        • Angermeier KW
        • Elliott S
        • et al.
        Male urethral stricture: American urological association guideline.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 182-190
        • Myers JB
        • Porten SP
        • McAninch JW
        The outcomes of perineal urethrostomy with preservation of the dorsal urethral plate and urethral blood supply.
        Urology. 2011; 77: 1223-1227
        • Reilly DJ
        • Sham EK
        • Chee JB
        • et al.
        A novel application of the lotus petal flap in high-risk perineal urethrostomy: principles and outcomes.
        Australasian J Plastic Surg. 2018; 1
        • Parker DC
        • Morey AF
        • Simhan J
        7-flap perineal urethrostomy.
        Transl Androl Urol. 2015; 4: 51-55
        • Kamat N
        Perineal urethrostomy stenosis repair with buccal mucosa: description of technique and report of four cases.
        Urology. 2008; 72: 1153-1155
        • Scaglioni MF
        • Chen YC
        • Yang JCS
        Posteromedial thigh (PMT) propeller flap for perineoscrotal reconstruction: A case report.
        Microsurgery. 2015; 35: 569-572
        • Smeets L
        • Hendrickx B
        • Teo T
        The propeller flap concept used in vaginal wall reconstruction.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012; 65: 629-633
        • Secrest CL
        Staged urethroplasty: indications and techniques.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2002; 29 (viii-ix): 467-475
        • Elliott SP
        • Eisenberg ML
        • McAninch JW
        First-stage urethroplasty: utility in the modern era.
        Urology. 2008; 71: 889-892
        • Blandy J
        • Singh M
        • Tresidder G
        Urethroplasty by scrotal flap for long urethral strictures.
        Br J Urol. 1968; 40: 261-267
        • Myers JB
        • McAninch JW
        Perineal urethrostomy.
        BJU Int. 2011; 107: 856-865
        • Lumen N
        • Houtmeyers P
        • Monstrey S
        • et al.
        Revision of perineal urethrostomy using a meshed split-thickness skin graft.
        Case Rep Nephrol Urol. 2014; 4: 12-17
        • Fowler JM
        Incorporating pelvic/vaginal reconstruction into radical pelvic surgery.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 115: 154-163
        • Lejour M
        • Dome M
        Abdominal wall function after rectus abdominis transfer.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991; 87: 1054-1068
        • Carr MM
        • Manktelow RT
        • Zuker RM
        Gracilis donor site morbidity.
        Microsurgery. 1995; 16: 598-600
        • Teo TC
        The propeller flap concept.
        Clin Plast Surg. 2010; 37: 615-626
        • Pignatti M
        • Ogawa R
        • Hallock GG
        • et al.
        The “Tokyo” consensus on propeller flaps.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 127: 716-722
        • Wilson SC
        • Stranix JT
        • Khurana K
        • et al.
        Fasciocutaneous flap reinforcement of ventral onlay buccal mucosa grafts enables neophallus revision urethroplasty.
        Ther Adv Urol. 2016; 8: 331-337
        • Drinka PJ
        Complications of chronic indwelling urinary catheters.
        J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2006; 7: 388-392