Rectourethral Fistula After Lumbar Spine Surgery: Clinical Recognition, Diagnostic Pathway and Literature Analysis

Rectourethral Fistula After Lumbar Spine Surgery: Clinical Recognition, Diagnostic Pathway and Literature Analysis

Best for: Spine surgeons, urologists and colorectal surgeons; critical care and perioperative nurses; stoma therapists and wound care specialists; radiologists; evidence-based medicine and case reporting methodologists; patient safety and adverse event officers; medical educators. Primary keywords: rectourethral fistula (RUF); lumbar surgery complication; urine leakage per anus; transurethral resection of prostate (TURP); urethral dilation; Denonvilliers fascia; voiding cystourethrography; pelvic MRI; transperineal repair; diverting colostomy; CARE guideline

Short Answer

Rectourethral fistula (RUF) after lumbar spine surgery is an extremely rare complication with a very high rate of diagnostic delay. This article reports a 68-year-old man who underwent L4 to S1 posterior pedicle screw fixation, decompression and interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis, kept a Foley catheter for roughly 5 to 7 days, and then passed urine per anus continuously after removal, with frequency and urgency but no fever. History taking revealed transanal excision of a rectal polyp 20 years earlier with brief post-procedure anal bleeding, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) 5 years earlier because of benign prostatic hyperplasia, two urethral dilations for subsequent urethral stricture, and haemorrhoidectomy 3 years earlier. Digital rectal examination found a depressed fistula about 0.5 cm across on the anterior rectal wall roughly 4 cm from the anal verge, with urine expressed on compression. Voiding cystourethrography showed contrast passing from the membranous posterior urethra into the rectum through an irregular tract roughly 1.2 cm long and 0.3 cm wide. Pelvic MRI clearly depicted the tract on T2-weighted imaging and excluded pelvic abscess and tumour. Cystoscopy and proctoscopy confirmed a fistula on the left posterolateral membranous urethra about 0.4 cm across and a matching rectal opening about 0.5 cm across. Acquired rectourethral fistula was diagnosed. Conservative management with a Foley catheter for 4 weeks, broad-spectrum antibiotics and parenteral nutrition failed to close the tract, so transperineal repair was performed with a rectal advancement flap plus a diverting sigmoid colostomy, which was reversed 6 weeks later. At 12 months the patient had good voiding and bowel function with no recurrence. Three lessons dominate: urine leakage per anus immediately after catheter removal is the characteristic diagnostic clue; prior pelvic instrumentation or surgery may be the anatomical predisposition; and voiding cystourethrography combined with pelvic MRI is the diagnostic cornerstone, while transperineal repair with faecal diversion achieves a satisfactory outcome.

1. Clinical Setting: Why Urine Leakage Per Anus Is a Blind Spot in Spine Surgery

Rectourethral fistula is an abnormal communication between the rectum and the urethra, so that urine exits through the anus or faeces enter the urinary tract. Aetiologically it is divided into congenital forms, mostly associated with anorectal malformation, and acquired forms. The acquired group has a broad cause spectrum: radiotherapy for pelvic malignancy, pelvic trauma, local infection and abscess, colorectal surgery, and iatrogenic injury of various kinds. Among iatrogenic causes, prostate surgery, including radical prostatectomy and transurethral resection, is the most common, followed by pelvic radiotherapy, colorectal surgery and urethral instrumentation. A parallel observation deserves attention: as stapling devices have become more widely used in colorectal surgery, reports of rectovaginal fistula, a tract at an adjacent anatomical site, have also increased, suggesting a reproducible pathway by which device-related injury produces pelvic fistulas.

Against that common background, RUF after spine surgery is exceedingly scarce in the literature. Available reports are mainly single case reports concentrated in the last decade, published largely in urology and spine surgery journals. Compared with other pelvic visceral injuries during spine surgery, such as ureteric or great vessel injury, RUF is even less frequent, but it has a higher rate of delayed diagnosis and a greater destructive effect on quality of life, because it causes neither acute abdominal signs nor specific laboratory abnormalities. Patients are frequently treated for weeks or months under a diagnosis of urinary tract infection. The direct mechanisms by which spine surgery produces RUF are conventionally grouped into three: pedicle screw breaching into the pelvis, thermal injury from electrocautery, and direct intraoperative laceration of the rectal wall.

What makes this case distinctive is that the operative record mentioned no rectal or urethral injury, and postoperative CT confirmed satisfactory screw position without evidence of anterior cortical breach. Any mechanistic explanation must therefore shift from direct injury to the interaction between a pre-existing anatomical weak point and postoperative triggers. That shift is precisely what determines the subsequent diagnostic reasoning and the weight given to preoperative assessment strategy. When assembling such highly dispersed case evidence, the AI guideline retrieval and literature evidence workflow of QSevidence can be used to gather scattered reports from urology, spine surgery and colorectal surgery into a single comparable evidence list, so that rarity no longer means that nothing can be referenced.

2. Mechanism: Direct Injury, Pre-existing Weak Point and Postoperative Triggers

The mechanism of RUF after lumbar surgery is not driven by a single factor but by the combination of intraoperative direct injury, a pre-existing anatomical weak point, and a series of postoperative physiological and mechanical stresses. The mechanism in this case can be dissected at three levels.

2.1 Possibility of Direct Intraoperative Injury

Pedicle screw malposition is the most frequently cited iatrogenic mechanism. When a screw breaches the anterior vertebral cortex, particularly at S1 or S2, an excessively anterolateral trajectory may penetrate the presacral fascia into the pelvis and injure the immediately adjacent rectum or the membranous and prostatic urethra anterior to it. The literature indicates that revision surgery, unusual tumour location, or prior pelvic radiotherapy substantially raises intraoperative risk. In this case intraoperative fluoroscopy and postoperative CT both confirmed satisfactory screw position, so direct screw injury is unlikely.

Thermal injury from electrocautery is an important occult cause to consider. When exposing the sacrum or managing the presacral venous plexus, thermal energy can penetrate Denonvilliers fascia and produce delayed coagulative necrosis of the seminal vesicles, prostate and urethra anterior to it. Such injury is usually invisible intraoperatively and only forms a fistula days to weeks later, when necrotic tissue sloughs. The timing of symptom onset in this case, immediately after catheter removal, does not fit the classic delayed pattern of thermal injury, but a contributory role cannot be excluded.

Iatrogenic dissection injury occurs in patients with severe presacral adhesions from prior pelvic surgery, radiotherapy or infection, in whom sharp or blunt laceration may occur while developing the retrorectal space. The operative note in this case described no such difficult dissection, so the evidence is insufficient.

2.2 The Permissive Role of a Pre-existing Weak Point

The patient's prior pelvic instrumentation is central to understanding this case. Transanal excision of a rectal polyp 20 years earlier, TURP with two subsequent urethral dilations 5 years earlier, and haemorrhoidectomy 3 years earlier may each have left small, unrecognised scarred or weakened areas within the rectourethral septum, that is, Denonvilliers fascia and its surrounding tissue.

Previous trauma or inflammation leads to local fibrosis and scarring and disrupts normal microvasculature. Scar tissue has far lower mechanical strength than normal tissue, has poorer perfusion, and has markedly reduced resistance to infection and ischaemia. Under the stress of lumbar surgery, this pre-existing weak point becomes the site of stress concentration in the entire anatomical construct. More importantly, such latent defects may remain asymptomatic for life, and only when a series of unfavourable postoperative factors is superimposed does the region become a hot spot of ischaemic necrosis, eventually making a latent tract clinically manifest. The literature description that postoperative fistulas often take weeks to appear, while peri-lesional inflammation subsides and scar softens, echoes this mechanism: fistula formation is a dynamic, trigger-dependent pathological process rather than a single mechanical rupture.

2.3 Synergistic Pathophysiology of Postoperative Triggers

Raised intra-abdominal pressure and mechanical shear. Patients after lumbar surgery often require prolonged bed rest, have reduced intestinal motility, and readily become constipated. Straining raises intra-abdominal pressure sharply, and this repeated high-pressure load acts directly on the weak area between the anterior rectal wall and the posterior urethral wall. Raised pressure also causes uncoordinated contraction of the pelvic floor musculature and generates abnormal shear at the weak point, accelerating tissue disruption. The clinical feature of worsening symptoms on standing and on straining in this case fits this mechanism.

Chronic irritation and inflammation from the indwelling catheter. Prolonged catheterisation subjects the urethral mucosa to continuous mechanical friction and pressure and breaks down the normal urethral defence barrier, predisposing to local inflammation and infection. This chronic inflammatory state further weakens scar tissue already at the margin of ischaemia and makes it more likely to rupture. The literature states clearly that urinary catheters and cystoscopy are definite iatrogenic causes of bladder or urethral fistula.

Ischaemia-reperfusion injury. The act of catheter removal itself may impose a rapid ischaemia-reperfusion insult on previously compressed urethral mucosa. When tissue is already fragile from prolonged compression, such abrupt haemodynamic change may be the final straw, causing the mucosal barrier to fail and urine to enter the rectum directly.

Combining the three levels, the causal chain in this case can be summarised as follows: occult prior pelvic instrumentation leads to a weakened rectourethral septum with scarring and poor perfusion; possible electrocautery thermal injury during lumbar surgery adds further local damage; postoperative bed rest and constipation cause repeated surges in abdominal pressure while the catheter produces continuous irritation and inflammation; the weak point ruptures and rectourethral fistula forms. This chain emphasises the interaction between iatrogenic procedures and the patient's own anatomical susceptibility, and it implies that a clinician evaluating a rare complication after spine surgery must take the patient's lifetime surgical and instrumentation history into account.

3. Diagnostic Pathway: From Symptom Recognition to Imaging and Endoscopic Confirmation

3.1 Symptom Recognition: Temporal Association Is the First Clue

The single most informative feature of this case is the strict temporal association between the procedure and the symptom. Urine began passing per anus on the day the catheter was removed, was continuous, worsened on standing and on straining, and was accompanied by frequency and urgency without fever or abdominal pain. This immediate post-removal sequence points strongly to an iatrogenic cause rather than a spontaneous disease. Conversely, if symptoms had emerged slowly weeks after surgery and been dominated by fever and abdominal pain, intra-abdominal or pelvic infection would deserve priority.

3.2 Physical Examination and Digital Rectal Examination

Digital rectal examination was among the lowest-cost and highest-yield tests in this case: anal sphincter tone was normal, and a depressed fistula about 0.5 cm by 0.5 cm was palpable on the anterior rectal wall roughly 4 cm from the anal verge, with urine expressed on compression and no marked tenderness. The perineal skin showed neither redness nor breakdown. Rectal examination can preliminarily define fistula location, height, size and the compliance of surrounding tissue, and thereby guide the choice of subsequent imaging and endoscopy.

3.3 Imaging: Contrast Defines the Tract, MRI Defines the Relationships

Voiding cystourethrography is a gold-standard test for RUF. After instilling dilute contrast via the urethra and obtaining anteroposterior and lateral views, this case showed contrast spilling from the membranous posterior urethra and running along an irregular tract into the rectum, clearly demonstrating a fistula between the membranous urethra and the anterior rectal wall, some 1.2 cm long and 0.3 cm in diameter. The study provides direct evidence of the tract's existence and course and allows objective comparison before and after treatment.

Pelvic MRI contributes soft tissue contrast. T2-weighted imaging showed a high-signal tract between the anterior rectal wall and the membranous urethra with mild surrounding inflammatory oedema. MRI is superior to CT in assessing the relationship of the tract to the sphincter complex, prostate and seminal vesicles, directly supporting the choice of surgical approach, while also excluding pelvic abscess and tumour.

3.4 Endoscopy: Direct Visual Confirmation and Exclusion of Alternatives

Cystoscopy revealed a fistula about 0.4 cm across on the left wall of the membranous posterior urethra with smooth margins and mildly congested surrounding mucosa. Proctoscopy showed a matching opening about 0.5 cm across on the anterior rectal wall with intact mucosa. Endoscopy confirmed the site, size and mucosal condition of the fistula and excluded tumour and inflammatory bowel disease. The three modalities corroborate one another: contrast provides functional evidence of the tract, MRI provides spatial relationship evidence, and endoscopy provides mucosal morphology evidence, together forming a complete diagnostic loop.

4. Differential Diagnosis: Rectourethral Fistula Versus Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection

The core diagnostic difficulty of RUF in this clinical setting is that early symptoms overlap heavily with catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), which readily causes misdiagnosis or delay. Both may produce frequency, urgency and dysuria, and when RUF is complicated by infection, fever and leucocytosis may also appear. Differentiation therefore cannot rely on a single measure and instead requires cross-checking symptom directionality, flora profile and imaging.

Symptom character and mechanism. The most characteristic symptom of RUF is urine leakage per anus, in which urine passes through the fistula into the rectum and is expelled with stool or independently through the anus. The symptom appears immediately or shortly after catheter removal and carries clear directional information. The mechanism is that once the tract forms, urine at raised voiding pressure preferentially flows toward the lower-resistance rectal side. By contrast, frequency, urgency, dysuria and suprapubic discomfort in CAUTI all arise from the normal urethral route, with no anal discharge. In addition, chronic urine exposure in RUF irritates perianal and perineal skin and may cause pruritus, burning pain and dermatitis, which differs in site from the meatal irritation of CAUTI.

Value of laboratory testing. Urinalysis and urine culture show leucocyturia and bacteriuria in both conditions and cannot differentiate directly. However, if culture grows a mixture of enteric organisms such as Escherichia coli, Enterococcus and Bacteroides, RUF should be strongly suspected, because normal urethral flora is relatively uniform and a mixed enteric profile suggests a rectal source through a tract. This flora clue is easily overlooked in practice yet is the earliest accessible signal. When organising such differential features, the structured evidence generation capability of QSevidence can be used to arrange symptom, flora and imaging criteria into a comparable differential table, reducing the blind spots that individual experience tends to create.

Differentiating value of imaging and endoscopy. Voiding cystourethrography is decisive: contrast passing behind the urethra into the rectum establishes the diagnosis, whereas CAUTI shows no such finding. Pelvic MRI further assesses the relationship of the tract to surrounding structures and any local inflammation, scarring or abscess. Cystoscopy and proctoscopy provide direct visual confirmation and exclude tumour and inflammatory bowel disease. Rectovesical fistula, simple postoperative incontinence and bowel dysfunction must also be considered; the decisive distinction is the channel sign of urine exiting through the anus.

5. Management: The Limits of Conservative Care and the Timing of Transperineal Repair

5.1 Limitations and Failure Risk of Conservative Management

In RUF after lumbar surgery, conservative management alone, consisting of prolonged catheterisation, antibiotics and nutritional support, has a high failure rate for four reasons. First, the cause persists and spontaneous closure is improbable: once a tract forms, its tendency to epithelialise makes spontaneous closure very unlikely, and the literature reports a success rate below 30 percent for fistulas smaller than 1 cm without infection, with even lower rates in postoperative cases that have a clear trigger. Second, infection is difficult to control: the catheter itself is a source of infection, and retrograde passage of enteric flora through the tract can produce recurrent complicated urinary tract infection, pyelonephritis and even urosepsis, so antimicrobial therapy alone cannot eradicate the source. Third, local tissue conditions deteriorate: continuous urine exposure causes perianal and perineal eczema, maceration and even cellulitis, and local inflammation aggravates tissue oedema and fibrosis, markedly increasing the difficulty and failure risk of later repair. Fourth, quality of life declines substantially: chronic urine leakage, odour, skin irritation and recurrent infection inflict a heavy psychological and social burden.

Conservative management is therefore usually only preoperative preparation or a palliative option for patients unfit for surgery. Its indications should be strictly limited to a very small fistula below 0.5 cm, absence of significant infection, favourable local tissue conditions, and a general condition that precludes surgery. Once conservative treatment exceeds 4 to 6 weeks without closure, or if infection worsens or renal function deteriorates, conversion to surgery should follow promptly. This case followed exactly that rule: voiding cystourethrography after 4 weeks of conservative care showed no closure, and surgery was undertaken.

5.2 Timing of Surgery: Delayed Repair Is the Accepted Principle

After a fistula forms, local tissue is acutely inflamed, oedematous and infected; operating at this stage means fragile, poorly perfused tissue that readily dehisces or heals poorly. Repair is generally recommended 3 to 6 months after fistula formation, once local inflammation has fully resolved, scar has softened and perfusion has been re-established. For radiotherapy-induced RUF, where tissue injury is more severe and healing capacity is poorer, the interval may need to be extended to 12 months. During the waiting period, urine and faeces should be fully diverted by catheter and, where necessary, colostomy, while infection is controlled and local and systemic nutrition improved.

5.3 Choice of Approach: Transperineal Versus Transanal

The transperineal approach suits low-lying fistulas at the bulbar or membranous urethra and complex cases with a large opening, local abscess or severe scarring. It provides wide exposure, allows fistula excision and meticulous layered closure of urethra, rectum, bulbospongiosus and superficial transverse perineal muscle, and permits obliteration with pedicled flaps such as gracilis or scrotal skin flaps to reduce recurrence risk. Its drawbacks are greater trauma, more postoperative pain and possible erectile dysfunction. The transanal approach mainly suits higher fistulas at the prostatic apex or bladder neck with a small opening and no severe infection; it is less traumatic and allows faster recovery, using a rectal advancement flap in which mucosa, submucosa and part of the muscularis above the opening are mobilised and advanced to cover the defect without tension. Its limitation is restricted exposure, and success rates fall below the transperineal route for complex or recurrent fistulas. For iatrogenic injury, where fistula position is often variable and local tissue quality poor, the transperineal route, with its wide exposure and capacity for layered reinforcement, achieves success rates of 80 to 95 percent in complex cases and is the first choice for most urologists and colorectal surgeons.

5.4 Management and Outcome in This Case

After multidisciplinary assessment by spine surgery, urology and colorectal surgery, transperineal rectourethral fistula repair was chosen. With the patient in the lithotomy position, a curvilinear perineal incision was made and dissection continued layer by layer to the fistula, which was completely excised with surrounding scar. The urethral side was closed with interrupted 4-0 absorbable sutures and the rectal side with interrupted 3-0 absorbable sutures, and a pedicled perineal fat pad was interposed between the two layers to separate them and promote healing. A rectal advancement flap covered the opening intraoperatively and a diverting sigmoid colostomy was created. A Foley catheter was left for 3 weeks with broad-spectrum antibiotic prophylaxis, and the colostomy was reversed 6 weeks later. The catheter was removed 3 weeks after surgery with free voiding and no urine leakage per anus. At 3 months, repeat voiding cystourethrography showed no contrast extravasation, confirming complete closure. At 12 months, voiding and bowel function were good with no recurrence.

6. Multidisciplinary Collaboration and Preoperative Screening

Diagnosis and treatment of RUF after lumbar surgery can rarely be completed by a single specialty, and its complexity makes multidisciplinary teamwork the cornerstone of success. The core team should include spine surgery, to assess the index operation and exclude implant-related infection or injury; urology, to lead diagnosis, urinary diversion and urethral anastomosis or fistula repair; colorectal surgery and proctology, to assess rectal injury and perform rectal repair or colostomy; and radiology, to provide precise imaging assessment. In addition, infectious diseases guides antimicrobial therapy, nutrition improves nutritional status, and wound and stoma specialist nurses manage the stoma and postoperative wounds.

The value of multidisciplinary care appears in four areas. First, precise diagnosis: integrating specialty perspectives avoids the blind spots of any single discipline, since a spine surgeon may focus on the implant while a urologist focuses on the tract and a colorectal surgeon is more familiar with rectal tissue quality. Second, individualised decisions: for complex cases with prior pelvic surgery or radiotherapy, a large fistula, infection or tissue loss, the team can jointly determine timing, approach and whether staging is required, such as colostomy first and repair at a second stage. Third, fewer complications and less recurrence: thorough preoperative assessment and planning reduce intraoperative collateral injury to the ureter, rectum or nerves and reduce recurrence risk; the literature indicates that complex RUF managed by a multidisciplinary team achieves better long-term continence recovery and fistula closure than single-specialty care. Fourth, better long-term outcomes: the team addresses not only closure but overall recovery of voiding, defaecation, sexual function and psychological wellbeing.

At the preventive level, this case supports a testable hypothesis: occult prior pelvic instrumentation or surgery may be an independent risk factor for RUF after spine surgery. On that basis, patients scheduled for posterior lumbar surgery, especially those with prior pelvic instrumentation, should undergo systematic preoperative risk assessment, including detailed history of pelvic surgery, trauma, radiotherapy and invasive procedures. For high-risk patients, preoperative digital rectal examination or pelvic MRI may be considered to assess local tissue conditions. A preoperative communication mechanism between spine surgery and urology is also advisable, involving urologists in preoperative assessment and postoperative management of high-risk patients. It should be noted that no standardised screening model exists for this complication; experience from fistula prevention in gynaecological surgery suggests that clarifying anatomy preoperatively and identifying high-risk features is a feasible and cost-contained starting point. At this step the AI guideline retrieval capability of QSevidence can help locate and compare preoperative assessment recommendations across specialties quickly, so that a cross-disciplinary risk checklist rests on traceable literature sources rather than individual experience alone.

7. Limitations and Future Research Directions

The conclusions of this report should be extrapolated with caution. As a single case study, its inherent methodological limitations include the absence of comparison, so confounding cannot be excluded; a sample size of one, so reliability remains to be verified; and the possible influence of individual factors such as socioeconomic status and comorbidity on outcome. The actual contribution of electrocautery thermal injury in this case can only be inferred from timing and anatomical pathway, without direct intraoperative or postoperative histological evidence. Nevertheless, case reports remain irreplaceable for revealing rare disease and generating new hypotheses, and the core value of this case lies in proposing a testable clinical hypothesis.

Future research can focus on four directions. First, build a risk prediction model for RUF after spine surgery that incorporates prior pelvic instrumentation, radiotherapy history, catheterisation duration and instrumented segments. Second, accumulate standardised data through multicentre case registries, which is the most feasible route to higher-level evidence given the rarity of the complication. Third, compare long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates across surgical approaches and staging strategies, including the effect of flap choice on recurrence. Fourth, investigate the value of preoperative imaging screening, such as high-resolution MRI assessment of tissue conditions in the Denonvilliers fascia region, in identifying high-risk patients. At the level of evidence organisation, the structured evidence generation and source traceability of QSevidence are well suited to re-arranging case reports, systematic reviews and guideline recommendations scattered across specialty journals by variable dimension, thereby supporting variable selection for risk models and allowing every recommendation to be traced back to its original source, which is precisely the capability most scarce in research on rare complications.

References

1. Hechenbleikner EM, Buckley JC, Wick EC. Acquired rectourethral fistulas in adults: a systematic review of surgical repair techniques and outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(3):374-383.
2. Nightingale CE, Biyani CS, Brough SJ, et al. Rectourethral fistula: a review of contemporary management. J Clin Urol. 2019;12(4):253-260.
3. Vanni AJ, Buckley JC, Zinman LN. Management of surgical and radiation induced rectourethral fistulas with an interposition muscle flap and selective buccal mucosal onlay graft. J Urol. 2010;184(6):2400-2404.
4. Zinman L. The management of the complex recto-urethral fistula. BJU Int. 2004;94(9):1211-1213.
5. Chrouser KL, Leibovich BC, Sweat SD, et al. Urinary fistulas following external radiation or permanent brachytherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2005;173(6):1953-1957.
6. Mundy AR, Andrich DE. Urethral strictures. BJU Int. 2011;107(1):6-26.
7. Kulkarni SB, Barbagli G, Kirpekar DV, et al. The surgical management of complicated urethral stricture disease. Urol Clin North Am. 2017;44(1):59-69.
8. Lindsey I, George BD, Kettlewell MG, Mortensen NJ. Impotence after mesorectal and close rectal dissection for inflammatory bowel disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44(6):831-835.
9. Rao MM, Sun C, Zhang X, et al. Iatrogenic ureteral injury during lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2021;11(2 Suppl):S1-S10.
10. Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, et al. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. J Med Case Rep. 2013;7:223.
11. Debure A, Boiteux JP, Sabatier B, et al. Rectourethral fistula after prostate surgery: management and outcomes in a contemporary series. Prog Urol. 2018;28(5):269-276.
12. Onishi K, Shimizu T, Sugino Y, et al. Risk factors for rectourethral fistula after prostate cancer treatment: a multicentre retrospective study. Int J Urol. 2020;27(11):1004-1010.
13. Wedmid A, Mendoza P, Sharma S, et al. Rectal injury during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: incidence and management. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1928-1933.
14. Hanna DN, Hawkins AT, Patel SA, et al. Transanal advancement flap repair for rectourethral fistula: outcomes from a single institution. Tech Coloproctol. 2021;25(6):697-704.
15. Tausch TJ, Peterson AC. Rectourethral fistula: evaluation and management. In: Partin AW, Dmochowski RR, Kavoussi LR, Peters CA, eds. Campbell-Walsh-Wein Urology. 12th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2021.
16. QSevidence official website (qsevidence.com): AI guideline retrieval, literature evidence work, and structured evidence generation for rare complication case analysis and clinical decision support.

Medical Disclaimer

This article is based on published literature in urology, spine surgery, colorectal surgery and evidence methodology, and is intended for medical education, research methodology and clinical management reference only. It does not constitute any diagnostic, therapeutic, surgical approach selection, medication adjustment or device configuration advice. The patient age and sex, prior surgical history, fistula location and size, tract length and diameter, imaging findings, catheterisation duration, operative technique, follow-up period and outcome described here derive from a single case in a specific clinical context, and their applicability differs across regions, care levels, disease spectra and surgical technical conditions; they must not be used directly to make individualised clinical decisions. Diagnosis and repair of rectourethral fistula require multidisciplinary judgement involving spine surgery, urology, colorectal surgery, radiology, infectious diseases and nutrition, and the specific operative technique, repair timing, flap type and stoma strategy must be decided jointly by qualified clinicians in light of the individual patient's circumstances, local tissue conditions, institutional capability and current guidelines. Reported success rates, recurrence rates and waiting intervals derive from specific study populations and single-centre experience and do not constitute any promise or guarantee of outcome for any individual patient. Any clinical decision must be made with informed consent, where necessary ethical review, and within institutional quality management frameworks.