4.6 Article

Intraurethral Steroids are a Safe and Effective Treatment for Stricture Disease in Patients with Biopsy Proven Lichen Sclerosus

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 195, 期 6, 页码 1790-1795

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.067

关键词

urethral stricture; lichen sclerosus et atrophicus; balanitis xerotica obliterans; steroids; surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We investigated outcomes of the contemporary practice of administering intraurethral steroids to treat stricture disease in patients with biopsy proven lichen sclerosus. Materials and Methods: We performed an institutional review board approved review of the records of patients with biopsy proven lichen sclerosus stricture disease from October 2010 to September 2015. Study inclusion criteria were age 18 years or greater and male gender. Extracted data included patient demographics, comorbidities, location of lichen sclerosus, previous therapies and need for further interventions. Management was considered successful when there was no need for subsequent escalation of therapy. The intraurethral steroid regimen consisted of applying clobetasol cream to the affected urethra to lubricate a calibration device such as a urinary catheter or meatal dilator. The initial phase of therapy included twice daily application for 2 to 3 months, at which point the frequency was decreased by the clinician, enabling the patient to titrate medication use as needed. Results: We identified 40 patients with biopsy proven lichen sclerosus who had urethral stricture as part of the disease state. Of these patients 28 received the intraurethral steroid regimen and success was achieved in 25 (89%). Mean followup was 24.8 months. No patient who was started on the intraurethral steroid regimen proceeded to urethroplasty. Conclusions: Based on our outcomes we have developed a stepwise treatment algorithm for patients with biopsy proven lichen sclerosus stricture disease that uses intraurethral steroids before initiating plans for invasive surgery.

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

4.6
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