Excision and Primary Anastomosis for Short Bulbar Strictures: Is It Safe to Change from the Transecting towards the Nontransecting Technique?

Abstract EN

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<0.001).

Nineteen (9.5%) patients suffered a failure, 13 (11.6%) with tEPA and 6 (6.8%) with ntEPA (p=0.333).

High-grade (grade ≥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.