4.6 Review

Stricture Recurrence After Urethroplasty: A Systematic Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 182, Issue 4, Pages 1266-1270

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.06.027

Keywords

urethral stricture; recurrence; urethra; penis

Funding

  1. AUA Foundation with contributions from Sanofi-Aventis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Urethroplasty remains the gold standard for the management of urethral stricture disease with acceptable long-term success. However, the standard by which stricture recurrence is defined and evaluated after urethral reconstruction remains widely variable. We conducted a systematic review of the urological literature to determine how stricture recurrence is defined and evaluated. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted on all contemporary urethroplasty articles published between 2000 and 2008. Using the term urethroplasty 302 articles were identified and evaluated. A total of 86 articles were included in the analysis. Results: The overall recurrence rate for all reconstructive procedures was 15.6%, which remained stable between 2000 and 2008. Stricture recurrence was determined by a mean of 3 (range 1 to 8) different diagnostic tests. The most common primary diagnostic tests for recurrence were uroflowmetry (56% of articles) and retrograde urethrography (51%). Cystourethroscopy was used as a primary screen to identify stricture recurrence in 25% of articles, and as a secondary procedure in another 21%. Recurrence was defined as the need for an additional surgical procedure or dilation in 75% and 52% of articles, respectively. Conclusions: The methods used to determine stricture recurrence after urethroplasty remain widely variable. The use of a standardized surveillance protocol to define stricture recurrence after urethral reconstruction may allow more effective comparison of urethroplasty outcomes across institutions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available