Delayed spontaneous perforation of urinary bladder with intraperitoneal seeding following radical transurethral resection of invasive urothelial cancer: a case report
© Kim and Yang; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014
Received: 26 August 2013
Accepted: 1 March 2014
Published: 20 March 2014
Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) may be applicable for the treatment of deeply invasive tumors in high-risk patients who are not suitable candidates for radical cystectomy. Intraperitoneal perforation is much less common, however, bladder wall perforation is still a cause for concerns because after perforation several studies have been reported to have peritoneal or abdominal metastases.
An 84-year-old female patient with multiple large enhancing masses in the urinary bladder underwent radical TURBT to remove the deeply invasive tumors because she was not a suitable candidate for a major operation. Microscopic examination of the resected specimen confirmed the muscle invasive urothelial carcinoma with partial invasion into the perivesical fat tissue. She visited again 6 months later after the operation complaining abdominal distension. Computed tomography showed perforation of urinary bladder with intraperitoneal seeding and adnexa metastasis.
Radical TURBT could be associated with delayed perforation of urinary bladder and intraperitoneal seeding.
Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) is the primary treatment modality for bladder cancer . Bladder wall perforation is considered the second most frequent complication, with a presumed incidence of 1.3% to 5% [2, 3]. However, small and asymptomatic perforations of the bladder is believed to occur much more commonly than expected [4, 5]. Obviously, most of these perforations are extraperitoneal, which heal spontaneously and can go unnoticed since the perforations do not cause any perioperative and postoperative problems [4, 5]. Even in cases of intraperitoneal perforation, peritoneal recurrence of tumor cell has been rarely reported [3, 6]. Here we describe a case of delayed perforation of the urinary bladder with intraperitoneal seeding detected at 6 months following radical TURBT.
The objective of TURBT is to eradicate all visible disease while attaining an accurate histological diagnosis. To achieve this goal, deep and extensive resection beyond the basement membrane is generally warranted. This, however, puts the patient at risk of bladder perforation . The real incidence of bladder perforation during a TURBT is not well known, and is often underestimated. This is because no routine examination is done to check bladder perforation in asymptomatic patients . Two studies have described routine cystogram after TURBT [4, 5]. In small series of 36 and 34 patients, contrast medium leakage was confirmed in 58.3% and 50%, respectively. All perforations were extraperitoneal and were managed conservatively [4, 5]. On the other hand, intraperitoneal perforations are much less common. Bladder wall perforation is still a cause for concerns because several studies have been reported to have peritoneal or abdominal metastases after a perforation [3, 6, 8]. Mydlo et al. noted that intraperitoneal perforation was followed by extensive peritoneal and liver metastasis within 4 months of resection . Bus et al. reported the first case of tumor seeding to both adnexa in a patient with low grade urotherlial cancer conservatively treated with TURBT that had intraperitoneal perforation . Skolarikos et al. insisted surgical repair of a bladder perforation during transurethral resection of bladder tumor increases the risk of extravesical tumor cell recurrence and negatively affects patient prognosis, however, we assume their study had a lower level of evidence due to their retrospective approach . For example, there exists a possibility that they tended to perform surgical repair to the more severe bladder perforation. All patients undergoing open surgical repair ended in extravesical tumor recurrence in their study .
TURBT may be applicable not only in the management of superficially invasive urothelial cancer but for the treatment of deeply invasive tumors in high-risk patients to whom the radical cystectomy is not suitable . Perforation is usually a consequence of inadvertent full thickness bladder wall resection . Some advocates of radical TURBT argue on the fact that since the morbidity regarding the perforation which is required for complete removal of the tumor is minimal the end justifies the means . In our case, radical TURBT was attempted since the cystoscopic findings suggested invasive bladder cancer and the patient was deemed not to be a suitable candidate for a major operation. However, our patient was not a proper candidate of this procedure considering the tumor’s multiplicity, nodularity, or size . Microscopic examination revealed the fat tissue that is already invaded by tumor cells, suggesting a microperforation or a very thinned-out bladder wall. We believe the latter was the case because postoperative cystogram showed no dye leakage and the patient urinated well for at least the next 3 months after TURBT. Either ingrowth of residual cancer into the bladder wall or the patient’s comorbid physical status may have prevented adequate healing of the thinned bladder wall, occurring urine leakage to be delayed. The risk of bladder perforation was associated with female gender, decreasing body mass index, higher tumor stage, deeper infiltration and higher resection weight when risk factors were separately analyzed . We believe virtually all tumors invade beyond the basement membrane are high grade and allowing these cells to enter the perivesical space can jeopardize the patient .
Radical TURBT could be associated with delayed perforation of urinary bladder and intraperitoneal seeding. We take into consideration whether this procedure is appropriate to take the risk, even though the risk of tumor implantation outside the bladder is small.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient’s guardians for publication of this Case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor of this journal.
This work was supported in part by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund.
- Golan S, Baniel J, Lask D, Linvne PM, Yossepowitch O: Transurethral resection of bladder tumour complicated by perforation requiring open surgical repair - clinical characteristics and oncological outcomes. BJU Int. 2010, 107 (7): 1065-1068.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nieder AM, Meinbach S, Kim SS, Soloway MS: Transurethral bladder tumor resection: intraoperative and postoperative complications in a residency setting. J Urol. 2005, 174 (6): 2307-2309. 10.1097/01.ju.0000181797.19395.03.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mydlo JH, Weinstein R, Shah S, Solliday M, Macchia RJ: Long-term consequences from bladder perforation and = or violation in the presence of transitional cell carcinoma: results of a small series and a review of the literature. J Urol. 1999, 161 (4): 1128-1132. 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)61608-2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Balbay MD, Cimentepe E, Unsal A, Bayrak O, Koc A, Akbulu Z: The actual incidence of bladder perforation following transurethral bladder surgery. J Urol. 2005, 174 (6): 2260-2262. 10.1097/01.ju.0000181811.61199.35.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- El Hayek OR, Coelho RF, Dall’oglio MF, Murta CB, Riberiro Filho LA, Nunes RL, Chade D, Menezes M, Srouqi M: Evaluation of the incidence of bladder perforation after transurethral bladder tumor resection in a residency setting. J Endourol. 2009, 23 (7): 1183-1186. 10.1089/end.2008.0406.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bus MT, Cordeiro ER, Anastasiadis A, Klioueva NM, de la Rosette JJ, de Reijke TM: Urothelial carcinoma in both adnexa following perforation during transurethral resection of a non-muscle invasive bladder tumor: a case report and literature review. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012, 12 (12): 1529-1536. 10.1586/era.12.136.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Herkommer K, Hofer C, Gschwend JE, Kron M, Treiber U: Gender and body mass index as risk factors for bladder perforation during primary transurethral resection of bladder tumors. J Urol. 2012, 187 (5): 1566-1570. 10.1016/j.juro.2011.12.114.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Skolarikos A, Christofos M, Ferakis N, Papatsoris A, Dellis A, Deliveliotis C: Does the management of bladder perforation during transurethral resection of superficial bladder tumors predispose to extravesical tumor recurrence?. J Urol. 2005, 173 (6): 1908-1911. 10.1097/01.ju.0000158450.71497.ae.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Traxer O, Pasqui F, Gattegno B, Pearle MS: Technique and complications of transurethral surgery for bladder tumors. BJU Int. 2004, 94 (4): 492-496. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04990.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Solsona E, Iborra I, Collado A, Rubio-Briones J, Casanova J, Calatrava A: Feasibility of radical transurethral resection as monotherapy for selected patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer. J Urol. 2010, 184 (2): 475-481. 10.1016/j.juro.2010.04.008.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.