Is intraperitoneal bladder perforation during the transurethral resection of the bladder tumors treatable with urethral catheter alone?: Retrospective analysis over 15 years using the Clinical Data Warehouse (CDW) system (Preprint)
BACKGROUND Despite the current medical trend of non-invasive treatment, open surgical repair is the gold standard for intraperitoneal perforation during the transurethral resection of the bladder tumors (TURBT). Efforts have been made to attempt non-invasive treatment, but few studies have been reported. Because intraperitoneal perforation rarely occurs, it is difficult to collect a cohort group. In this case, Clinical Data Warehouse (CDW) system is being used for data analysis for diseases management by extracting data of specific conditions from accumulated electronic health record (EHR). OBJECTIVE We investigated the clinical experience of non-invasive treatment including urethral catheter-alone treatment for bladder perforations during TURBT, especially in cases of intraperitoneal perforations (IPP). METHODS Total 4543 TURBT patients were retrospectively analyzed using the CDW system from January 2000 to December 2017. After extracting the patient with the keywords 'perforation', 'perforated', ‘fat’, 'distension', ‘extravasation’ and 'leakage' from the surgical record using CDW, extracted patients record was reviewed. After dividing the type of perforation into the extraperitoneal perforation (EPP) and the IPP, the clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment methods, clinical course, recurrence-free survival (RFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed in the IPP patients treated with Foley alone and were compared to EPP and control TURBT groups. RESULTS IPP was observed in 16 cases (35.6%) and EPP in 29 cases (64.4%). In the IPP group, 11 (68.8%) patients were treated with Foley alone, two (12.5%) with additional percutaneous drainage, and three (18.8%) with delayed open surgery. The Foley alone in the IPP group improved without sequelae or therapeutic delay. Only one of two cases of IPP larger than the cystoscopy was accomplished with Foley alone treatment, and the other underwent delayed surgical repair. There were no differences in RFS and PFS in the Foley alone of IPP group compared to the EPP (p=0.45, p=0.69) and control TURBT groups (p=0.90, p=0.51). CONCLUSIONS It was presented that the intraperitoneal bladder perforation during the TURBT showed a low rate. In smaller intraperitoneal perforation than the cystoscopy size, urethral catheter alone treatment did not show any specific complications and the oncological outcomes were not significantly different. So, the urethral catheter alone treatment can be considered carefully when small IPP occurs.