Better defining the optimal management of penile urethral strictures: A retrospective comparison of single-stage vs. two-stage urethroplasty
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5895Keywords:
urethroplasty, penile urethral stricture, urethral stricture, flap, graft, reconstructionAbstract
Introduction: We aimed to compare single-stage and two-stage urethroplasty techniques for the treatment of penile urethral strictures.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all penile urethroplasties performed at a single center between 2003 and 2017. The primary outcome was urethral patency, defined as the ability to easily pass a 16 Fr flexible cystoscope at six and 18 months of followup, and development of 90-day complications.
Results: Overall, 101 single-stage procedures (48 buccal mucosal graft [BMG] and 53 penile fasciocutaneous flap [PFF]) and 53 two-stage procedures were performed. There was no difference in median stricture length between groups (p=0.25). Cox regression analysis did not identify stricture etiology, length, age, obesity, prior reconstruction, or urethroplasty technique to be associated with failure. Log-rank testing did not demonstrate a difference in success rates between surgical techniques (91% [48/53] PFF vs. 83% [40/48] BMG vs. 87% [46/53] two-stage). Thirty-nine percent (60/154) of patients experienced a complication (51% [27/53] PFF vs. 29% [14/48] BMG vs. 36% [19/53] two-stage). Multivariate analysis found urethroplasty technique to be the only factor associated with development of complication (p=0.02); odds ratio relative to BMG was 3.1 (p=0.009) for PFF and 1.4 (p=0.43) for two-stage.
Conclusions: There appears to be little difference in success between penile urethroplasty techniques. The shift in technique to a single-stage BMG, when appropriate, appears to be founded on the basis of fewer operations for the patient relative to a two-stage repair, and a lower complication profile relative to single-stage PFF, without compromising success rates.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.
