Multi-institutional 1-year bulbar urethroplasty outcomes using a standardized prospective cystoscopic follow-up protocol
- PMID: 24837453
- PMCID: PMC4307391
- DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.01.054
Multi-institutional 1-year bulbar urethroplasty outcomes using a standardized prospective cystoscopic follow-up protocol
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate multi-institutional outcomes of bulbar urethroplasty utilizing a standardized cystoscopic follow-up protocol.
Methods: Eight reconstructive surgeons prospectively enrolled urethral stricture patients in a multi-institutional study and performed postoperative cystoscopy at 3 and 12 months. Anatomic failure was defined as the inability to pass a flexible cystoscope without force. Functional failure was defined as the need for a secondary procedure. Men not compliant with the 12-month cystoscopy were called and asked if any interval secondary procedures had been performed. Patients with bothersome voiding complaints at cystoscopy were considered symptomatic.
Results: Of 213 men in study, 136 underwent excisional urethroplasty (excision and primary anastomosis [EPA]) and 77 underwent repair with buccal grafts. Cystoscopy compliance was 79.8% at 3 months and 54.4% at 12 months. Anatomic success rates were higher at 3 vs 12 months for EPA repairs (97.2% [106 of 109] vs 85.5% [65 of 76; P=.003] but not buccal repairs (85.5% [53 of 62] vs 77.5% [31 of 40]; P=.30). Functional success rates at a year were higher but statistically similar to anatomical success rates (EPA-90.3% [93 of 103]; P=.33; buccal-87% [47 of 54]; P=.22). Of the 20 anatomic recurrences, only 13 (65%) were symptomatic at the time of cystoscopic diagnosis.
Conclusion: Rates of success are lower when using the anatomic vs traditional definition. Of recurrences found by cystoscopy, only 65% were symptomatic. One-year patient cystoscopy compliance was poor and its ability to be used as the gold standard screening methodology for recurrence is questionable.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Reply: To PMID 24837453.Urology. 2014 Jul;84(1):217. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.01.059. Epub 2014 May 14. Urology. 2014. PMID: 24837452 No abstract available.
-
Editorial comment.Urology. 2014 Jul;84(1):216-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.01.058. Epub 2014 May 14. Urology. 2014. PMID: 24837454 No abstract available.
References
-
- Wood DN, Andrich DE, Greenwell TJ, et al. Standing the test of time: the long-term results of urethroplasty. World J Urol. 2006;24:250–254. - PubMed
-
- Yeung LL, Brandes SB. Urethroplasty practice and surveillance patterns: a survey of reconstructive urologists. Urology. 2013;82:471–475. - PubMed
-
- Meeks JJ, Erickson BA, Granieri MA, et al. Stricture recurrence after urethroplasty: a systematic review. J Urol. 2009;182:1266–1270. - PubMed
-
- Santucci RA, Mario LA, McAninch JW. Anastomotic urethroplasty for bulbar urethral stricture: analysis of 168 patients. J Urol. 2002;167:1715–1719. - PubMed
-
- Barbagli G, Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, et al. Ventral oral mucosal onlay graft urethroplasty in nontraumatic bulbar urethral strictures: surgical technique and multivariable analysis of results in 214 patients. Eur Urol. 2013;64:440–447. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials