Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 721   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 249-254

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

1 Department of General Surgery, University Hospital Hassan II, Fez, Morocco
2 Department of Urology, University Hospital Hassan II, Fez, Morocco
3 Department of Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital Hassan II, Fez, Morocco
4 Department of Radiology, University Hospital Hassan II, Fez, Morocco

Correspondence Address:
E I Bachir Benjelloun
Medical School of Fez. Sidi Hrazem Road 30000, Fez
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/0974-7796.120298

PMID: 24311904

Rights and Permissions

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.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded287    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal