Vessel-sparing excision and primary anastomosis

Urethroplasty is considered to be the standard treatment for urethral strictures since it provides excellent long-term success rates. For isolated short bulbar or posterior urethral strictures, urethroplasty by excision and primary anastomosis (EPA) is recommended. As EPA only requires the excision of the narrowed segment and the surrounding spongiofibrosis, a full-thickness transection of the corpus spongiosum, as performed in the traditional transecting EPA (tEPA), is usually unnecessary. Jordan et al. introduced the idea of a vessel-sparing approach in 2007, aiming to reduce surgical trauma, especially to the dual arterial blood supply of the urethra, and, thus, potentially reducing the risk of postoperative erectile dysfunction or glans ischemia. This approach could also be beneficial for subsequent urethral interventions such as redo urethroplasty using a free graft, in which a well-vascularized graft bed is imperative. Nevertheless, these potential benefits are only assumptions as prospective studies comparing the functional outcome of both techniques with validated questionnaires are currently lacking. Moreover, vessel-sparing EPA (vsEPA) should at least be able to provide similar surgical outcomes as tEPA. The aim of this paper is to give an elaborate, step-by-step overview of how to manage patients with isolated short bulbar or posterior urethral strictures with vsEPA. The main objective of this manuscript is to outline the surgical technique and to report the representative surgical outcome. A total of 117 patients were managed according to the described protocol. The analysis was performed on the entire patient cohort and on the bulbar (n = 91) and posterior (n = 26) vsEPA group separately. Success rates were 93.4% and 88.5% for the bulbar and posterior vsEPA, respectively. To conclude, vsEPA, as outlined in the protocol, provides excellent success rates with low complication rates for isolated short bulbar and posterior urethral strictures

Excision and primary anastomosis for short bulbar strictures : is it safe to change from the transecting towards the nontransecting technique?

Objective: To explore whether it is safe to change from transecting excision and primary anastomosis (tEPA) towards nontransecting excision and primary anastomosis (ntEPA) in the treatment of short bulbar urethral strictures and to evaluate whether surgical outcomes are not negatively affected after introduction of ntEPA. Materials and Methods: Two-hundred patients with short bulbar strictures were treated by tEPA (n=112) or ntEPA (n=88) between 2001 and 2017 in a single institution. Failure rate and other surgical outcomes (complications, operation time, hospital stay, catheterization time, and extravasation at first cystography) were calculated for both groups. Potentially predictive factors for failure (including ntEPA) were analyzed using Cox regression analysis. Results: Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 76 months, 118 months, and 32 months for, respectively, tEPA and ntEPA (p= 3) complication rate was low (1%) and not higher with ntEPA. Median operation time, hospital stay, and catheterization time with tEPA and ntEPA were, respectively, 98 and 87 minutes, 3 and 2 days, and 14 and 9 days. None of these outcomes were negatively affected by the use of ntEPA. Diabetes and previous urethroplasty were significant predictors for failure (Hazard ratio resp. 0.165 and 0.355), whereas ntEPA was not. Conclusions. Introduction of ntEPA did not negatively affect short-term failure rate, high-grade complication rate, operation time, catheterization time, and hospital stay in the treatment of short bulbar strictures. Diabetes and previous urethroplasty are predictive factors for failure

Genitoplasty in newborn females with adrenogenital syndrome : focus on the reconstruction technique and its outcomes

The adrenogenital syndrome is an autosomal recessive disorder in which an enzyme defect in the steroid pathway leads to excessive prenatal exposure of androgens. In the female fetus, masculinization of the external genitalia is observed. Surgery aims for functional and aesthetical reconstruction. Many techniques have been described. A video of our modified pull-through reconstruction technique is hereby presented. A retrospective descriptive database was created with patients who underwent genitoplasty for a CAH-associated genital condition. A video demonstrating the reconstructive technique was recorded while operating on a 9-month-old girl. Prior to surgery a cystoscopy is performed to evaluate the length of the urogenital sinus. Surgery starts with creating a reversed U-flap, after which the urogenital sinus is mobilized. The corpora cavernosa are released and the neurovascular bundle is isolated. To create vaginal space the urogenital sinus is subsequently separated. The vaginal introitus is anchored to the perineal skin flap. Labia minora are created by splitting the preputial skin. Finally excessive skin tissue is resected. Twenty-two female patients underwent reconstructive surgery for the adrenogenital syndrome in a tertiary referral centre over 16 years. Median age at surgery was 3 months (0-190). Median follow-up was 36 months (0-108) after surgery. A good functional and aesthetical outcome was observed. The modified pull-through technique, illustrated by this video, provided satisfactory results with a low complication rate. Follow-up until adulthood is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes

Urethral management after artificial urinary sphincter explantation due to cuff erosion

Introduction: The artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard treatment in cases of moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence in males. Cuff erosions are one of the most important distant complications of AUS implantation. The optimal urethral management has still not been established. Material and methods: Search terms related to 'urethral stricture', 'artificial urinary sphincter', and 'cuff erosion' were used in the PubMed database to identify relevant articles. Results: In this mini review we identified 6 original articles that assessed the urethral management after AUS explantation due to cuff erosion and included urinary diversion by transurethral and/or suprapubic catheterization, urethrorrhaphy, and in situ urethroplasty. We summarized the results of different management methods and their efficacy in terms of preventing urethral stricture formation. We highlight the need for better-quality evidence on this topic. Conclusions: The available data do not provide a clear answer to the question of optimal urethral management during AUS explantation. There is a great need to provide higher-quality evidence on this topic

Primary versus redo urethroplasty : results from a single-center comparative analysis

Objectives. To explore the differences between primary and redo urethroplasty and to directly compare according stricture-free survival (SFS). Materials and Methods. Data of all male patients who underwent urethroplasty at Ghent University Hospital were collected between 2000 and 2018. Exclusion criteria for this analysis were age = 1 previous urethroplasty), irrespective of prior endoscopic treatments. A comparison between groups was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's Exact test. SFS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier statistics. A functional definition of failure, being the need for further urethral manipulation, was used. Uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed on the entire patient cohort. Results. 805 patients were included. Median (IQR) follow-up of the PU (n = 556) and RU (n = 249) groups was 87 (50-136) and 76 (40-133) months, respectively (p=0.1). The RU group involved more penile strictures (p<0.001), Lichen Sclerosus (p=0.016), failed hypospadias repair (p=0.004), multistage procedures (p<0.001), and definitive perineostomies (p=0.001). The 5- and estimated 10-year SFS was, respectively, 86% and 79% for the PU group and, respectively, 75% and 63% for the RU group (p<0.001). Prior urethroplasty (HR: 1.52; p=0.01) and diabetes (HR: 1.83; p=0.03) remained statistically significant in the multivariate Cox regression analysis. Conclusions. Several differences between primary and redo urethroplasties exist. Redo urethroplasty entails a distinct patient population to treat and is, in general, associated with lower stricture-free survival than primary urethroplasty, although more homogeneous series are required to corroborate these results. Prior urethroplasty and diabetes are independent risk factors for urethroplasty failure