Urol Ann. 2013 Oct;5(4):249-54. doi: 10.4103/0974-7796.120298.

Rectal impalement with bladder perforation: A review from a single institution.

Urology annals

Ei Bachir Benjelloun, Youness Ahallal, Khalid Khatala, Tarik Souiki, Iman Kamaoui, Khalid Ati Taleb

PMID: 24311904 PMCID: PMC3835982 DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.120298

Abstract

CONTEXT: Impalement injuries of the rectum with bladder perforation have been rarely reported. Such lesions have been associated with increased postoperative morbidity. A well-conducted preoperative evaluation of the lesions tends to prevent such complications.

AIMS: To increase awareness about patients with rectal impalement that involve bladder injuries and to examine the significance of thorough clinical examination and complementary investigation for these patients' management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospectively, we identified three patients with rectal impalement and bladder perforation treated in University Hospital Hassan II, Fez, Morocco. We recorded the symptoms, subsequent management, and further follow-up for each patient. All available variables of published cases were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS: Evident urologic symptoms were present in only one patient. Bladder perforation was suspected in two other patients on the basis of anterior rectal perforation in digital exam. Retrograde uroscanner could definitely confirm the diagnosis of bladder perforation. Fecal and urine diversion was the basis of the treatment. No postoperative complications were noted. We have reviewed 14 previous reports. They are presented mainly with urine drainage through the rectum. Radiologic investigation (retrograde cystography and retrograde uroscanner) confirmed bladder perforation in 10 patients (71.4%). Unnecessary laparotomy was performed in six patients (42.8%). Fecal diversion and urinary bladder decompression using urethral catheter were the most performed procedures in bladder perforation [6/14 patients (42.8%)]. No specific postoperative complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS: A high index of clinical suspicion is required to make the diagnosis of bladder perforation while assessing patients presenting with rectal impalement. Meticulous preoperative assessment is the clue of successful management.

Keywords: Bladder perforation; laparotomy; rectal impalement; retrograde-uroscanner

References

1. J Trauma. 1998 Oct;45(4):656-61 - PubMed
2. Tunis Med. 1991 Mar;69(3):161-5 - PubMed
3. J Trauma. 1995 May;38(5):818-9 - PubMed
4. Int J Urol. 2001 Nov;8(11):634-6 - PubMed
5. Br Med J. 1971 Jun 26;2(5764):748-9 - PubMed
6. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1976 Oct;143(4):605-8 - PubMed
7. J Urol. 1983 Nov;130(5):887-8 - PubMed
8. J Chir (Paris). 1994 Oct;131(10):413-6 - PubMed
9. J Trauma. 2007 Feb;62(2):325-9 - PubMed
10. J Trauma. 1986 Sep;26(9):830-3 - PubMed
11. Ann Surg. 1989 May;209(5):600-10; discussion 610-1 - PubMed
12. Khirurgiia (Mosk). 2000;(6):37-9; discussion 40 - PubMed
13. J Trauma. 1980 Jun;20(6):473-7 - PubMed
14. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1997 Feb;13(1):40-3 - PubMed
15. Ann Chir. 1984 Feb;38(1):62-4 - PubMed
16. Ann Emerg Med. 1991 Aug;20(8):845-7 - PubMed
17. J Trauma. 1988 Jul;28(7):989-94 - PubMed
18. Am J Surg. 2001 Nov;182(5):460-4 - PubMed
19. Am J Surg. 1984 Dec;148(6):806-8 - PubMed
20. Am Surg. 1987 Apr;53(4):215-9 - PubMed
21. J Pediatr Surg. 2006 Sep;41(9):E1-3 - PubMed
22. J Urol. 1963 Jul;90:53-7 - PubMed
23. J Trauma. 2010 May;68(5):1265 - PubMed
24. J Trauma. 1993 Mar;34(3):347-53 - PubMed

Publication Types

• Journal Article