Dataset Information

Double-face Augmentation Urethroplasty for Bulbar Urethral Strictures: Technical Implications and Short-term Outcomes for a Dorsal Versus Ventral Approach.

ABSTRACT: This study describes technical implications and compares short-term outcomes after a dorsal versus ventral approach for double-face augmentation urethroplasty (DFAU) for treating a near-obliterated bulbar urethral stricture (BUS). This was a retrospective evaluation of a prospectively collected database of patients with BUS (<2 cm) who underwent DFAU. The choice between the approaches depended on (1) landmark identification (the relation between the bulbospongiosus muscle and the distal end of the stricture) and (2) corpus spongiosum width. In DFAU, inlay augmentation was at the level of the narrowed urethral plate (<6 Fr). Patient follow-up data (symptom score and uroflowmetry) were assessed every 3 mo for the first year, and every 6 mo thereafter. A successful outcome was defined as a normal urinary flow rate without obstructive voiding symptoms. Fifty-two patients underwent DFAU for BUS (dorsal approach, n = 30; ventral approach, n = 22). The maximum flow rate and symptom scores significantly improved in both groups. The overall success rates (86%) were similar. In conclusion, a dorsal approach for DFAU is versatile and can be considered in all circumstances. A ventral approach should be performed in patients with proximal BUS. The short-term outcomes were similar for both approaches.

Patient summary

We assessed whether double-face augmentation urethroplasty is a suitable option for treating near-obliterated bulbar urethral strictures using two free grafts for augmentation to improve the urinary flow. This operation can be performed using two methods and both techniques were safe with similar short-term outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Enganti B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8317870 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Vessel-sparing anastomotic repair (vsAR) has been developed as a less traumatic alternative to transecting anastomotic repair (tAR) to treat isolated short bulbar urethral strictures. This vessel-sparing technique could result in improved functional outcomes without jeopardizing the excellent surgical outcome after (transecting) anastomotic repair. The purpose of this study is to directly compare vsAR and tAR for both surgical and functional outcomes. METHODS:This trial is a prospective, interventional, multi-center, single-blinded, 1:1 randomized, controlled, non-inferiority, phase II trial. Sample size calculation resulted in a required sample size of 100 patients (50 patients per arm). Trial participants will be randomized by an independent third party using a computer-based random sequence generator with permuted blocks of variable size. The primary objective of this trial is to show that vsAR is non-inferior to tAR in terms of failure-free survival after 24?months of follow-up, considering a non-inferiority limit of 10%. Failure is defined as the inability to pass a 16-Fr flexible cystoscope through the reconstructed area without damaging the urethral mucosa. Secondary end-points mainly include differences in postoperative complications and changes in functional outcome parameters, which will be assessed with validated questionnaires. All participants are scheduled for follow-up at 3, 12, and 24?months postoperatively. DISCUSSION:This trial will provide level Ib evidence about the differences in both surgical and functional outcome between vsAR and tAR, which may importantly scape the future of bulbar urethral reconstruction. Depending on the trial results, this phase II trial may generate a larger phase III trial with more statistical power and a lower alpha value. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03572348 ) and in the Belgian Clinical Trial Registry (B670201837335). The trial was registered prospectively. Registered on 28 June 2018.

Project description:BackgroundBulbar urethral stricture is a common cause for urinary symptoms in men and its two main treatment options both have drawbacks with little evidence on their relative cost-effectiveness. Current guidelines on the management of recurrent bulbar urethral stricture have been predominantly based on expert opinion and panel consensus.ObjectiveTo assess the relative cost-effectiveness of open urethroplasty and endoscopic urethrotomy as treatment for recurrent urethral stricture in men.MethodsSet in the UK National Health Service with recruitment from 38 hospital sites, a randomised controlled trial of open urethroplasty and endoscopic urethrotomy with 6-monthly follow-up over 24 months was conducted. Two hundred and twenty-two men requiring operative treatment for recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture and having had at least one previous intervention for stricture were recruited. Effectiveness was measured by quality- adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from EQ-5D 5L. Cost-effectiveness was measured by the incremental cost per QALY gained over 24 months using a within trial analysis and a Markov model with a 10-year time horizon.ResultsIn the within trial, urethroplasty cost on average more than urethrotomy (cost difference: £2148 [95% CI 689, 3606]) and resulted in a similar number of QALYs on average (QALY difference: - 0.01 [95% CI - 0.17, 0.14)] over 24 months. The Markov model produced similar results. Sensitivity analyses using multiple imputation, suggested that the results were robust, despite observed missing data.ConclusionsBased on current practice and evidence, urethrotomy is a cost-effective treatment compared with urethroplasty.KeypointsUrethrotomy and urethroplasty both led to symptom improvement for men with bulbar urethral stricture-a common cause for urinary symptoms in men; Urethroplasty appeared unlikely to offer good value for money compared to urethrotomy based on current evidence.Trial registrationISRCTN: 98009168 (date: 29 November 2012) and it is also in the UK NIHR Portfolio (reference 13507). Trial protocol: The latest version (1.8) of the full protocol is available at: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta/105723/ #/ and a published version is also available: Stephenson R, Carnell S, Johnson N, Brown R, Wilkinson J, Mundy A, et al. Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy-clarifying the management of men with recurrent urethral stricture (the OPEN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:600. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1120-4. Trial main clinical results publication: Goulao B, Carnell S, Shen J, MacLennan G, Norrie J, Cook J, et al. Surgical Treatment for Recurrent Bulbar Urethral Stricture: A Randomised Open-label Superiority Trial of Open Urethroplasty Versus Endoscopic Urethrotomy (the OPEN Trial), European Urology, Volume 78, Issue 4, 2020, Pages 572-580.

Project description:Background:Excision and primary anastomotic (EPA) urethroplasty remains the gold standard definitive treatment for short urethral stricture disease. For patients, postoperative erectile function and quality of life are the main goals of the surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are therefore of major importance. Objective:The objective of this study was to prospectively analyse functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. Design Settings and Participants:We prospectively evaluated 47 patients before and after EPA from August 2009 until February 2017. The first follow-up visit occurred after a median of 2.2 months (n = 47/47), with the second and third follow-ups occurring at a median of 8.5 months (n = 38/47) and 20.2 months (n = 31/47). Before surgery and at each follow-up visit, the patients received five questionnaires: the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the International Prostate Symptom Score with the Quality of Life (IPSS-QOL) score, the Urogenital Distress Inventory Short Form (UDI-6) score, the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) score, and the ICIQ-Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life (ICIQ-LUTS-QOL) score. Surgical Procedure:Surgery was performed in all cases using the same standardized EPA technique. Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis:Voiding symptoms, erectile dysfunction, and quality of life were analysed using paired sample t-tests, with a multiple-testing Bonferroni correction. Any requirement for instrumentation after surgery was considered treatment failure. Results and Limitations:Patients with mild or no baseline erectile dysfunction showed significant decline in erectile function at first follow-up (mean IIEF-5 of 23.27 [standard deviation; SD: 2.60] vs. 13.91 [SD: 7.50]; p=0.002), but this had recovered completely at the third follow-up (IIEF-5: 23.25 [SD: 1.91]; p=0.659). Clinically significant improvements were noted in IPSS, IPSS-QOL-score, UDI-6-score, and ICIQ-LUTS-QOL-score at the first follow-up (p<0.0001). These improvements remained significant at the second and third follow-ups (p<0.0001) for all PROMs. Three of the patients experienced stricture recurrence. The main limitations of this study were incomplete questionnaires, loss to follow-up, and low number of patients. Conclusions:EPA results in an initial decline in erectile function, but full recovery occurred at a median of 20 months. Voiding improved significantly, and a major improvement in quality of life was noted, which persisted for up to 20 months after surgery. Patient Summary:This study showed the importance of patient-reported outcome measures in indicating the actual outcome of urethral stricture disease surgery.

Dataset Information

Double-face Augmentation Urethroplasty for Bulbar Urethral Strictures: Technical Implications and Short-term Outcomes for a Dorsal Versus Ventral Approach.

Patient summary

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure