• Something wrong with this record ?

Perineal Urethrostomy for Complex Urethral Strictures: Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Reconstructive Referral Center and a Scoping Literature Review

J. Klemm, R. Dahlem, RJ. Schulz, DR. Stelzl, DK. Filipas, C. Brömmer, SF. Shariat, M. Fisch, MW. Vetterlein

. 2024 ; 212 (5) : 738-748. [pub] 20240802

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Review

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25003711

PURPOSE: There is a paucity of long-term objective and patient-reported outcomes after definitive perineal urethrostomy for complex urethral strictures. Our objective is to determine comprehensive long-term success of perineal urethrostomy with our 15-year experience at a reconstructive referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent perineal urethrostomy between 2009 and 2023 were identified. A comprehensive long-term follow-up was conducted, evaluating both objective outcomes (retreatment-free survival) and subjective outcomes through the use of validated questionnaires. Additionally, to provide further context for our findings, we conducted a scoping review of all studies reporting outcomes following perineal urethrostomy. RESULTS: Among 76 patients, 55% had iatrogenic strictures, with 82% previously undergoing urethral interventions. At a median follow-up of 55 months, retreatment-free survival was 84%, with 16% of patients experiencing perineal urethrostomy recurrent stenosis. Patient-reported outcomes revealed a generally satisfactory voiding function (Urethral Stricture Surgery Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms score) and continence (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form), with median scores of 4 (range 0-24) and 0 (range 0-21), but with bimodal distributions of sexual function scores (median International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function domain: 3.5; median Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Scale: 21). Treatment satisfaction was very high with a median International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Satisfaction outcome score of 21 (range 0-24). The scoping review revealed varying success rates ranging from 51% to 95%, highlighting difficulties in comparison due to variable success definitions and patient case mix. CONCLUSIONS: Perineal urethrostomy provides effective treatment for complex anterior urethral strictures, with high patient satisfaction, preserved continence function, and favorable voiding outcomes. It presents a viable option for older and comorbid patients, especially after thorough counseling on expected outcomes and potential risks.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25003711
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250206104632.0
007      
ta
008      
250121s2024 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1097/JU.0000000000004169 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)39092698
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Klemm, Jakob $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $1 https://orcid.org/000000017032579X
245    10
$a Perineal Urethrostomy for Complex Urethral Strictures: Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Reconstructive Referral Center and a Scoping Literature Review / $c J. Klemm, R. Dahlem, RJ. Schulz, DR. Stelzl, DK. Filipas, C. Brömmer, SF. Shariat, M. Fisch, MW. Vetterlein
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: There is a paucity of long-term objective and patient-reported outcomes after definitive perineal urethrostomy for complex urethral strictures. Our objective is to determine comprehensive long-term success of perineal urethrostomy with our 15-year experience at a reconstructive referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent perineal urethrostomy between 2009 and 2023 were identified. A comprehensive long-term follow-up was conducted, evaluating both objective outcomes (retreatment-free survival) and subjective outcomes through the use of validated questionnaires. Additionally, to provide further context for our findings, we conducted a scoping review of all studies reporting outcomes following perineal urethrostomy. RESULTS: Among 76 patients, 55% had iatrogenic strictures, with 82% previously undergoing urethral interventions. At a median follow-up of 55 months, retreatment-free survival was 84%, with 16% of patients experiencing perineal urethrostomy recurrent stenosis. Patient-reported outcomes revealed a generally satisfactory voiding function (Urethral Stricture Surgery Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms score) and continence (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form), with median scores of 4 (range 0-24) and 0 (range 0-21), but with bimodal distributions of sexual function scores (median International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function domain: 3.5; median Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculation Scale: 21). Treatment satisfaction was very high with a median International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Satisfaction outcome score of 21 (range 0-24). The scoping review revealed varying success rates ranging from 51% to 95%, highlighting difficulties in comparison due to variable success definitions and patient case mix. CONCLUSIONS: Perineal urethrostomy provides effective treatment for complex anterior urethral strictures, with high patient satisfaction, preserved continence function, and favorable voiding outcomes. It presents a viable option for older and comorbid patients, especially after thorough counseling on expected outcomes and potential risks.
650    12
$a striktura uretry $x chirurgie $7 D014525
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a hodnocení výsledků péče pacientem $7 D000071066
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    12
$a perineum $x chirurgie $7 D010502
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a uretra $x chirurgie $7 D014521
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a urologické chirurgické výkony u mužů $x metody $7 D013521
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a zákroky plastické chirurgie $x metody $7 D019651
650    _2
$a následné studie $7 D005500
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a časové faktory $7 D013997
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Dahlem, Roland $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany $1 https://orcid.org/0000000197387675
700    1_
$a Schulz, Robert J $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $1 https://orcid.org/0009000877310978
700    1_
$a Stelzl, Daniel R $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Filipas, Dejan K $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany $1 https://orcid.org/0000000236713948
700    1_
$a Brömmer, Christian $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria $u Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan $u Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria $u Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York $u Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas $u Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia $u Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary $1 https://orcid.org/0000000266276179
700    1_
$a Fisch, Margit $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Vetterlein, Malte W $u Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany $1 https://orcid.org/0000000159873883
773    0_
$w MED00003040 $t The Journal of urology $x 1527-3792 $g Roč. 212, č. 5 (2024), s. 738-748
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39092698 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250121 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250206104628 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2263464 $s 1239718
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 212 $c 5 $d 738-748 $e 20240802 $i 1527-3792 $m The Journal of urology $n J Urol $x MED00003040
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250121

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options