Bulbar urethroplasty: Transecting vs. nontransecting techniques

Guido Barbagli, Salvatore Sansalone, Giuseppe Romano, Massimo Lazzeri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To transect or not to transect the bulbar urethra in nontraumatic urethral strictures still remains an issue that is open to debate. Herewith, we evaluate and compare the results of these two different options in the treatment of bulbar urethral strictures. RECENT FINDINGS: In 404 patients, bulbar urethroplasty using transecting techniques (end-to-end anastomosis and augmented anastomotic repair) provided a success rate ranging from 90 to 98.6%. In 522 patients, bulbar urethroplasty using nontransecting techniques (nontransecting anastomotic urethroplasty and simple oral grafting techniques) provided approximately the same success rate, ranging from 81.8 to 100%. SUMMARY: Future studies, including more homogenous series of patients and subjective evaluation of urinary and sexual complications after repair, are necessary to surely establish the gold standard of treatment for nontraumatic strictures located in the proximal bulbar urethra.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)474-477
Number of pages4
JournalCurrent Opinion in Urology
Volume22
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2012

Fingerprint

Urethral Stricture
Urethra
Pathologic Constriction
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • augmented anastomotic repair
  • bulbar urethra
  • end-to-end anastomosis
  • oral mucosal graft urethroplasty
  • urethral stricture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Bulbar urethroplasty : Transecting vs. nontransecting techniques. / Barbagli, Guido; Sansalone, Salvatore; Romano, Giuseppe; Lazzeri, Massimo.

In: Current Opinion in Urology, Vol. 22, No. 6, 11.2012, p. 474-477.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Barbagli, Guido ; Sansalone, Salvatore ; Romano, Giuseppe ; Lazzeri, Massimo. / Bulbar urethroplasty : Transecting vs. nontransecting techniques. In: Current Opinion in Urology. 2012 ; Vol. 22, No. 6. pp. 474-477.
@article{5e65ad31d172479a87e33ac3e52b0587,
title = "Bulbar urethroplasty: Transecting vs. nontransecting techniques",
abstract = "PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To transect or not to transect the bulbar urethra in nontraumatic urethral strictures still remains an issue that is open to debate. Herewith, we evaluate and compare the results of these two different options in the treatment of bulbar urethral strictures. RECENT FINDINGS: In 404 patients, bulbar urethroplasty using transecting techniques (end-to-end anastomosis and augmented anastomotic repair) provided a success rate ranging from 90 to 98.6{\%}. In 522 patients, bulbar urethroplasty using nontransecting techniques (nontransecting anastomotic urethroplasty and simple oral grafting techniques) provided approximately the same success rate, ranging from 81.8 to 100{\%}. SUMMARY: Future studies, including more homogenous series of patients and subjective evaluation of urinary and sexual complications after repair, are necessary to surely establish the gold standard of treatment for nontraumatic strictures located in the proximal bulbar urethra.",
keywords = "augmented anastomotic repair, bulbar urethra, end-to-end anastomosis, oral mucosal graft urethroplasty, urethral stricture",
author = "Guido Barbagli and Salvatore Sansalone and Giuseppe Romano and Massimo Lazzeri",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835749be",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "474--477",
journal = "Current Opinion in Urology",
issn = "0963-0643",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bulbar urethroplasty

T2 - Transecting vs. nontransecting techniques

AU - Barbagli, Guido

AU - Sansalone, Salvatore

AU - Romano, Giuseppe

AU - Lazzeri, Massimo

PY - 2012/11

Y1 - 2012/11

N2 - PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To transect or not to transect the bulbar urethra in nontraumatic urethral strictures still remains an issue that is open to debate. Herewith, we evaluate and compare the results of these two different options in the treatment of bulbar urethral strictures. RECENT FINDINGS: In 404 patients, bulbar urethroplasty using transecting techniques (end-to-end anastomosis and augmented anastomotic repair) provided a success rate ranging from 90 to 98.6%. In 522 patients, bulbar urethroplasty using nontransecting techniques (nontransecting anastomotic urethroplasty and simple oral grafting techniques) provided approximately the same success rate, ranging from 81.8 to 100%. SUMMARY: Future studies, including more homogenous series of patients and subjective evaluation of urinary and sexual complications after repair, are necessary to surely establish the gold standard of treatment for nontraumatic strictures located in the proximal bulbar urethra.

AB - PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To transect or not to transect the bulbar urethra in nontraumatic urethral strictures still remains an issue that is open to debate. Herewith, we evaluate and compare the results of these two different options in the treatment of bulbar urethral strictures. RECENT FINDINGS: In 404 patients, bulbar urethroplasty using transecting techniques (end-to-end anastomosis and augmented anastomotic repair) provided a success rate ranging from 90 to 98.6%. In 522 patients, bulbar urethroplasty using nontransecting techniques (nontransecting anastomotic urethroplasty and simple oral grafting techniques) provided approximately the same success rate, ranging from 81.8 to 100%. SUMMARY: Future studies, including more homogenous series of patients and subjective evaluation of urinary and sexual complications after repair, are necessary to surely establish the gold standard of treatment for nontraumatic strictures located in the proximal bulbar urethra.

KW - augmented anastomotic repair

KW - bulbar urethra

KW - end-to-end anastomosis

KW - oral mucosal graft urethroplasty

KW - urethral stricture

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867582981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867582981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835749be

DO - 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835749be

M3 - Article

C2 - 22825459

AN - SCOPUS:84867582981

VL - 22

SP - 474

EP - 477

JO - Current Opinion in Urology

JF - Current Opinion in Urology

SN - 0963-0643

IS - 6

ER -