4.1 Article

Bulbar Urethral Stents for Bulbar Urethral Strictures: Long-Term Follow-Up after Stent Removal

期刊

UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS
卷 106, 期 3, 页码 243-248

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000514417

关键词

Bulbar urethral stricture; Bulbar urethral stent; Clinical efficacy; Stent; Urethral obstruction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the long-term clinical efficacy of temporary bulbar urethral stent (BUS) used for treatment of recurrent bulbar urethral stricture. Results showed a clinical success rate of 77.9%, and longer indwelling time and stricture length less than 2 cm were significantly associated with clinical success.
Background/Aim: The aim of this study was to assess long-term clinical efficacy of temporary bulbar urethral stent (BUS) used for treatment of recurrent bulbar urethral stricture (US). Materials and Methods: A total of 168 patients with recurrent bulbar US who underwent BUS placement after internal urethrotomy between 2009 and 2019 were enrolled. An indwelling time of 12 months was planned for the stents. After stent removal, the criteria for success of BUS treatment were defined as follows: no evidence of stricture on urethrogram or endoscopy, more than 15 mL/s of urinary peak flow, and no recurrent urinary tract infections. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on clinical success and compared. Results: The mean age, US length, and indwelling time were 46.7 (+/- 8.3) years, 2.32 (+/- 0.4) cm, and 9.7 (+/- 2.3) months, respectively. Median (range) follow-up was 71 (8-86) months. Clinical success was achieved in 77.9% patients. Longer indwelling time (8-18 [81.88%] vs. 3-7 [60%] months) and US length <2 cm (84.25% [<2 cm] vs. 58.5% [>= 2 cm]) were significantly associated with clinical success (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study is both the largest patient series and the longest follow-up for BUS in bulbar US. Our results suggest that BUS can be a safe and minimally invasive treatment alternative among bulbar US treatment options.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据