Cargando…
Perineal Urethrostomy: Surgical and Functional Evaluation of Two Techniques
Introduction. PU is an option to manage complex and/or recurrent urethral strictures and is necessary after urethrectomy and/or penectomy. PU is generally assumed to be the last option before abandoning the urethral outlet. Methods. Between 2001 and 2013, 51 patients underwent PU. Mean age (± standa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350848/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25789316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/365715 |
_version_ | 1782360243899990016 |
---|---|
author | Lumen, Nicolaas Beysens, Matthias Van Praet, Charles Decaestecker, Karel Spinoit, Anne-Francoise Hoebeke, Piet Oosterlinck, Willem |
author_facet | Lumen, Nicolaas Beysens, Matthias Van Praet, Charles Decaestecker, Karel Spinoit, Anne-Francoise Hoebeke, Piet Oosterlinck, Willem |
author_sort | Lumen, Nicolaas |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction. PU is an option to manage complex and/or recurrent urethral strictures and is necessary after urethrectomy and/or penectomy. PU is generally assumed to be the last option before abandoning the urethral outlet. Methods. Between 2001 and 2013, 51 patients underwent PU. Mean age (± standard deviation) was 60 ± 15 years. Only 13 patients (25.5%) did not undergo previous urethral interventions. PU was performed according to the Johanson (n = 35) or Blandy (n = 16) technique and these 2 groups were compared for surgical failure, maximum urinary flow (Q(max)), urinary symptoms, and quality of life (according to the International Prostate Symptom Score). Results. Both groups were similar for patient's and stricture characteristics. Only follow-up duration was significantly longer after Johanson PU (47.9 months versus 11.1 months; P = 0.003). For the entire cohort, 11 patients (21.6%) were considered a failure (9 or 25.7% for Johanson group and 2 or 12.5% for Blandy group; P = 0.248). There was a significant improvement of Q(max) in both groups. Quality of life after PU was comparable in both groups. Conclusions. PU is associated with a 21.6% recurrence rate and the patient should be informed about this risk. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4350848 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43508482015-03-18 Perineal Urethrostomy: Surgical and Functional Evaluation of Two Techniques Lumen, Nicolaas Beysens, Matthias Van Praet, Charles Decaestecker, Karel Spinoit, Anne-Francoise Hoebeke, Piet Oosterlinck, Willem Biomed Res Int Clinical Study Introduction. PU is an option to manage complex and/or recurrent urethral strictures and is necessary after urethrectomy and/or penectomy. PU is generally assumed to be the last option before abandoning the urethral outlet. Methods. Between 2001 and 2013, 51 patients underwent PU. Mean age (± standard deviation) was 60 ± 15 years. Only 13 patients (25.5%) did not undergo previous urethral interventions. PU was performed according to the Johanson (n = 35) or Blandy (n = 16) technique and these 2 groups were compared for surgical failure, maximum urinary flow (Q(max)), urinary symptoms, and quality of life (according to the International Prostate Symptom Score). Results. Both groups were similar for patient's and stricture characteristics. Only follow-up duration was significantly longer after Johanson PU (47.9 months versus 11.1 months; P = 0.003). For the entire cohort, 11 patients (21.6%) were considered a failure (9 or 25.7% for Johanson group and 2 or 12.5% for Blandy group; P = 0.248). There was a significant improvement of Q(max) in both groups. Quality of life after PU was comparable in both groups. Conclusions. PU is associated with a 21.6% recurrence rate and the patient should be informed about this risk. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015 2015-02-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4350848/ /pubmed/25789316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/365715 Text en Copyright © 2015 Nicolaas Lumen et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Lumen, Nicolaas Beysens, Matthias Van Praet, Charles Decaestecker, Karel Spinoit, Anne-Francoise Hoebeke, Piet Oosterlinck, Willem Perineal Urethrostomy: Surgical and Functional Evaluation of Two Techniques |
title | Perineal Urethrostomy: Surgical and Functional Evaluation of Two Techniques |
title_full | Perineal Urethrostomy: Surgical and Functional Evaluation of Two Techniques |
title_fullStr | Perineal Urethrostomy: Surgical and Functional Evaluation of Two Techniques |
title_full_unstemmed | Perineal Urethrostomy: Surgical and Functional Evaluation of Two Techniques |
title_short | Perineal Urethrostomy: Surgical and Functional Evaluation of Two Techniques |
title_sort | perineal urethrostomy: surgical and functional evaluation of two techniques |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350848/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25789316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/365715 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lumennicolaas perinealurethrostomysurgicalandfunctionalevaluationoftwotechniques AT beysensmatthias perinealurethrostomysurgicalandfunctionalevaluationoftwotechniques AT vanpraetcharles perinealurethrostomysurgicalandfunctionalevaluationoftwotechniques AT decaesteckerkarel perinealurethrostomysurgicalandfunctionalevaluationoftwotechniques AT spinoitannefrancoise perinealurethrostomysurgicalandfunctionalevaluationoftwotechniques AT hoebekepiet perinealurethrostomysurgicalandfunctionalevaluationoftwotechniques AT oosterlinckwillem perinealurethrostomysurgicalandfunctionalevaluationoftwotechniques |