Abstract
Background
To evaluate outcome of buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty (BMGU) for the treatment of urethral stricture disease, including a detailed analysis of success, morbidity and quality of life (QoL).
Methods
Between 12/05/2008 and 07/21/2010, 187 patients with urethral stricture disease, who were treated with BMGU at our University Medical Center, received a standardized questionnaire, evaluating postoperative success, morbidity and QoL. The primary endpoint was the success, i.e., stricture recurrence-free survival plus patients’ satisfaction with surgery. Secondary endpoints included erectile function, voiding symptoms, pain and health-related QoL, which were assessed with a modified Urethral Stricture Surgery Patient Reported Outcome Measure (USS PROM), including the Erectile Function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF), Incontinence Questionnaire Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Module (ICIQ-MLUTS) and EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D).
Results
In total, 83 patients (51.9%) completed the questionnaire. Bulbar, penile and panurethral strictures were found in 69 patients (83.1%), 13 patients (15.7%) and one patient (1.2%), respectively. The median length of the stricture was 5 cm (range: 1–16). At a median follow-up of 46 months (range: 36–54), 65 patients (78.3%) had no stricture recurrence and were satisfied with BMGU. Median scores for ICIQ-MLUTS, IIEF-EF and EQ-5D visual analogue scale were 6, 22 and 80, respectively. Based on USS PROM, postoperative improvement of QoL and satisfaction with BMGU was found in 67 patients (80.7%) and 68 patients (81.9%), respectively.
Conclusions
In patients with urethral stricture disease, BMGU offers excellent success, morbidity and QoL.
Keywords: Urethra, Urethral stricture, Buccal mucosa, Reconstructive surgical procedure, Treatment outcome
Background
Substitution urethroplasty is the gold standard treatment for long primary urethral strictures and recurrent urethral stricture disease [1]. Depending on the stricture’s length, location and etiology, various single-stage and two-stage techniques for substitution urethroplasty have been successfully established in daily clinical practice [2], including ventral onlay [3], dorsal inlay [4] or modified procedures [5]. Due to its favorable availability, simple processing and durable integration in the urethra [6], autologous buccal mucosa currently remains the most commonly used transplant for substitution urethroplasty [1, 7].
Several studies confirmed excellent stricture recurrence-free survival of buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty (BMGU) for the treatment of USD [5, 8]. In contrast, outcome comprising morbidity and health-related quality of life (QoL) has been poorly investigated thus far. In addition, previous studies included heterogeneous patient cohorts, various urethroplasty procedures and mainly lack of standardized validated instruments such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) [9–11], which might complicate the comparability of results. In 2011, Jackson et al. introduced Urethral Stricture Surgery (USS) PROM, facilitating a standardized outcome evaluation of voiding symptoms, health related QoL (HRQoL) and satisfaction with treatment [12]. A German language version of USS PROM with additional assessment of erectile function and urinary incontinence has recently been validated [13].
The aim of the present study was to evaluate in detail success, morbidity and HRQoL of BMGU for the treatment of urethral stricture disease in a contemporary, homogeneous patient cohort, using USS PROM.
Methods
Patient cohort
Data on 187 patients with urethral stricture disease, who were treated with BMGU at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf between 12/05/2008 and 07/21/2010, were prospectively collected in the local urethroplasty database and retrospectively reviewed following Institutional Review Board approval (local ethics committee approval number PV4123). Patients were included following written consent from each patient. Inclusion criteria were patients with urethral stricture disease, who were treated with BMGU at our institution. Patients’ refusal to participate in the study was an exclusion criteria.
Surgical procedure
BMGU has previously been described extensively [8, 13]. In brief, based on the location and length of the urethral stricture, single-stage or two-stage BMGU was performed [3, 5, 14, 15].
Questionnaire
All patients received the validated German language version of the USS-PROM [13], addressing voiding symptoms, patients’ satisfaction and HRQoL including the following questionnaires: The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-MLUTS) with an additional LUTS-specific QoL question from the ICIQ-MLUTSqol [16, 17]; The Peeling’s voiding picture; The EuroQuol 5D including pain evaluation and a visual analogue scale (VAS) [18]. In order to assess erectile function, the Erectile Function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) [19] was added. On July 25th 2013, the questionnaire was sent to 187 patients in paper form by post. Patients received the questionnaire at home.
Statistical analysis
The primary endpoint was the success rate following BMGU. Success was defined as stricture recurrence-free survival plus patients’ satisfaction with BMGU. Stricture recurrence was defined as any re-intervention and/or instrumentation following BMGU, including catheterization of the bladder or dilatation of the urethra. Patients’ satisfaction with BMGU was assessed with the question “Are you satisfied with the outcome of BMGU?” with the following answering possibilities: “very satisfied”, “satisfied”, “undecided”, “dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied”. Only patients answering “very satisfied” or “satisfied” were classified as satisfied with BMGU. Erectile function, voiding symptoms, pain and health-related QoL were secondary endpoints of the present study. Stricture recurrence-free survival and success probabilities were assessed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences between groups were measured using the Logrank statistic. Univariable Cox regression was used to assess time to stricture recurrence. Associations between categorical variables were evaluated with the Fisher exact and χ2-tests. Differences in continuous variables were evaluated with the Mann-Whitney-U test (two categories) and the Kruskal-Wallis test (three or more categories). All tests are two-sided. A p-value of < 0.05 was defined to be statistically significant. All analyses were made with SPSS 23 (SPSS Inc., IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
Results
Patients’ characteristics
In total, 187 patients underwent BMGU for urethral stricture disease between 12/05/2008 and 07/21/2010 at our center. Of these, 83 patients (44.4%) completed the questionnaire and were included in analyses. Table 1 presents clinical characteristics of the study cohort. In total, 69 patients (83.1%) had a stricture of the bulbar urethra. Single-stage BMGU was performed in 75 patients (90.4%). Prior surgical urethral interventions included direct visual internal urethrotomy, urethroplasty and dilatation in 59 patients (71.1%), 17 patients (20.5%) and 40 patients (48.2%), respectively.
Table 1.
Clinical characteristics of 83 patients with urethral stricture disease treated with buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty
| Age years [median (range)] | 61 (16; 77) |
| Follow-up months [median (range)] | 46 (36; 54) |
| Location of the stricture patients (%) | |
| Bulbar urethra | 69 (83.1) |
| Penile urethra | 13 (15.7) |
| Panurethral | 1 (1.2) |
| Length of the stricture cm [median (range)] | 5 (1; 16) |
| Procedure patients (%) | |
| Single-stage | 75 (90.4) |
| Two-stage | 8 (9.6) |
| Previous surgical urethral interventions patients (%) | 63 (75.9) |
| Number of direct visual internal urethrotomies | |
| 1 | 12 (14.5) |
| 2–5 | 38 (45.8) |
| > 5 | 9 (10.8) |
| Number of urethroplasties | |
| 1 | 14 (16.9) |
| > 1 | 3 (3.6) |
| Number of dilatations | |
| ≥ 1 | 40 (48.2) |
Outcome
At a median follow-up of 46 months (range: 36–54 months), success was found in 65 patients (78.3%), and 73 patients (88.0%) had no stricture recurrence (Fig. 1). There was no difference in the probability of success and stricture recurrence-free survival among patients with and without previous surgical urethral interventions, according the stricture length stratified by ≤5 cm and > 5 cm, as well as according patients’ age stratified by ≤60 years and > 60 years (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1.
Kaplan-Meier plots of success (a) and stricture recurrence-free survival (b) in 83 patients with urethral stricture disease treated with buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty
Fig. 2.
Kaplan-Meier plots of success (a, b, c) and stricture recurrence-free survival (d, e, f) in 83 patients with urethral stricture disease treated with buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty stratified by previous urethral surgery status (a, d), stricture length (b, e) and age (c, f)
Following BMGU, post-micturition dribbling and streaking the urethra was observed in 45 patients (54.2%) and 39 patients (46.1%), respectively. Severe penile shortening, penile curvature and hypoesthesia of the glans or scrotum was reported by 2 patients (2.4%), respectively. Fifty patients (60.3%) had erections with normal or slightly reduced rigidity. Forty- three patients (51.8%) had a normal or slightly reduced ejaculate volume and 9 patients (10.8%) had painful sensations during ejaculation. In total, 7 patients (8.4%) described a strong impairment of sexuality.
Table 2 displays data on erectile function, voiding symptoms, pain and QoL. Based on USS PROM, 67 patients (80.7%) and 68 patients (81.9%) reported improvement of HRQoL and satisfaction with the surgical procedure, respectively. There was no difference in ICIQ-MLUTS, Peeling’s voiding picture, IIEF-EF, ICIQ-MLUTSqol and EQ-5D among patients with and without previous surgical urethral interventions as well as according the stricture length stratified by ≤5 cm and > 5 cm (data not shown). There was no difference in ICIQ-MLUTS, Peeling’s voiding picture, ICIQ-MLUTSqol and EQ-5D among patients with an age ≤ 60 years and > 60 years (data not shown). Patients ≤60 years of age had elevated IIEF-EF scores compared to patients > 60 years of age (median IIEF-EF in patients ≤60 years vs. > 60 years: 29 vs. 3; p-value≤0.001).
Table 2.
Erectile function, voiding symptoms, pain and health related quality of life of 83 patients with urethral stricture disease treated with buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty
| Voiding symptoms | |
| ICIQ-MLUTS score [median (range)] | 6 (0; 17) |
| Peeling’s voiding picture [median (range)] | 2 (1; 4) |
| Erectile function | |
| IIEF-EF score [median (range)] | 22 (1; 30) |
| Health related quality of life | |
| ICIQ-MLUTSqol | |
| Urinary symptoms interfere with life – a little or not at all [patients (%)] | 68 (81.9) |
| EQ-5D: severe pain postoperatively [patients (%)] | 1 (1.2) |
| EQ-5D VAS [median (range)] | 80 (20; 100) |
| Surgical outcome | |
| USS PROM: improvement of quality of life [patients (%)] | 67 (80.7) |
| USS PROM: satisfaction with surgical procedure [patients (%)] | 68 (81.9) |
Risk factor analysis for reduced success and stricture recurrence
In univariable Cox regression analysis, neither previous surgical urethral interventions, nor stricture length, nor patients’ age were associated with a reduced success or increased stricture recurrence following BMGU (data not shown).
Discussion
We found that BMGU offers excellent outcome in a contemporary patient cohort with urethral stricture disease. Nearly 90% of patients did not require any form of re-intervention or instrumentation at a maximum follow-up exceeding 4 years, which is in line to results of earlier studies with 66 to 100% stricture recurrence-free survival at 15 to 83 months follow-up [7]. Based on strict success criteria, we found that the success rate of 78% was lower than the stricture recurrence-free survival. A reason for this discrepancy may certainly be the fact that outcome measure comprising the factor patients’ satisfaction may facilitate a more patient-oriented evaluation of the success of BMGU. Thus, our findings emphasize the importance of the inclusion of PROM in the evaluation of BMGU outcome. Indeed, although PROM does not allow an objective assessment of surgical complications, it adds crucial information on patients’ subjective morbidity, including voiding symptoms, erectile function, pain and health-related QoL following BMGU.
We found favorable Peeling’s voiding picture and ICIQ-MLUTS scores following BMGU, which corresponds to earlier reports [8, 13, 20]. Conversely, voiding symptoms including post-micturition dribbling and streaking the urethra were quite frequently reported in the present study. This discrepancy may indicate that patients do not consider these symptoms to be bothering. Indeed, based on ICIQ-MLUTSqol, more than 80% of patients reported that urinary symptoms did not interfere with life, which is comparable to the results of earlier studies [20]. The median IIEF-EF score showed mild erectile dysfunction, and a relevant proportion of patients reported erections with reduced rigidity. Other impairments of sexual function comprised reduced ejaculate volume, painful ejaculation, penile shortening and curvature as well as hypoesthesia of the glans or scrotum, which corresponds to previously reported findings [8, 21, 22]. However, more than 90% of patients did not report a strong deterioration of their sexuality. Other authors have previously shown variable impairment of sexual function and IIEF scores following BMGU [8, 13, 23–25]. Heterogeneity across different studies may be due to variable evaluation methods of sexual and erectile function, including inconsistent implementation of IIEF [21, 22, 26]. Importantly, our findings emphasize again the need of a standardized assessment of sexual and erectile function following BMGU. We found that the majority of patients did not experience strong pain postoperatively, which is reflected by low EQ-5D VAS scores and corresponds to earlier findings [8, 13, 20]. In accordance to a favorable postoperative morbidity, more than 80% of patients described an improvement of HRQoL and satisfaction with BMGU.
We did not find differences in success and morbidity among patients with and without previous urethral interventions as well as according to stricture length and patients’ age. Not surprisingly, these factors were not associated with an increased risk for failure and stricture recurrence in univariable analysis. In contrast, other authors have previously identified prior urethral interventions, stricture length and age as potential independent predictors for stricture recurrence and failure [27–29]. Variable findings across studies may be due to differences in cohort sizes, surgical urethroplasty techniques, follow-up and the definition of success. For example, patients with posterior urethral stricture were excluded from analyses [28] and stricture recurrence-free survival was assessed by urethrocystoscopy and symptom inquiry [29]. In fact, further studies are needed to clearly define risk factors for stricture recurrence and failure following BMGU.
The present study has relevant limitations. First and foremost are limitations inherent to the retrospective study design including a limited follow-up. Patients did not receive USS PROM preoperatively. Thus, baseline data on ICIQ-MLUTS, Peeling’s voiding picture, IIEF-EF, ICIQ-MLUTSqol, EQ-5D and VAS was not available. This represents an important limitation of the present study, since a comparison of preoperative and postoperative voiding, erectile function, urinary continence and quality of life was not possible. Thus, there remains a risk of bias regarding the impact of urethroplasty on patient reported outcomes. In addition, the response rate is limited and to draw conclusion regarding the patients who did not answer the questionnaire is not possible, which might represent a source of bias. The specific reasons for the limited response rate remain unknown. Patients received the questionnaire at variable time points following BMGU, which might have influenced the results, since the length of follow-up seems to be a predictor for stricture recurrence [27]. Data on buccal mucosa donor site complications were not available, although donor site morbidity may certainly have a detrimental impact on patients’ satisfaction and QoL [30]. Moreover, the present study did not comprise instrument-based outcome measure, i,e. urethral calibration, uroflowmetry, urethrography and urethrocystoscopy. These techniques may allow a more surgery-oriented outcome evaluation. In addition, instrument-based outcome measure and comparison to baseline values allows objective evaluation of surgical results. Missing data on urethral calibration, uroflowmetry, urethrography and urethrocystocopy following BMGU represents a limitation of the present study. Urethral calibration can identify narrowing of the urethral diameter and may detect stricture recurrence early following urethroplasty. However, stricture recurrences have to narrow the urethra to a caliber <10F to result in a relevant decrease of urinary flow rates [7]. In addition, urethrography implicates the use of radiation, and urethrocystoscopy is an invasive procedure, which may be problematic for monitoring patients with USD. Finally, urethral calibration, uroflowmetry, urethrography and urethrocystoscopy may not allow assessing adequately the morbidity of BMGU, which was a secondary endpoint of the present study. The present study did focus on success, morbidity and HRQoL of urethroplasty. Therefore, the utilization of USS-PROM is appropriate, since it represents a validated instrument allowing standardized patient-orientated outcome evaluation of success, voiding symptoms, quality of life and satisfaction.
Conclusions
In patients with urethral stricture disease, BMGU offers excellent outcome, success, morbidity and QoL, independently of previous urethral interventions, patients’ age and stricture length. Prior surgery, patients should be counseled on morbidity of BMGU, including voiding symptoms, pain and impairment of sexual and erectile function. USS PROM allows a detailed and standardized analysis of success, morbidity and HRQoL, and should therefore be consistently utilized in outcome reporting of BMGU.
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
The authors declare that they have no affiliation with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
Statistical data output of the present study is available from the corresponding author on request.
Abbreviations
- EQ-5D VAS
Euro QoL 5D Visual Analogue Scale
- EQ-5D
Euro QoL 5D
- ICIQ-MLUTS
Incontinence Questionnaire Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Module
- ICIQ-MLUTSqol
LUTS-specific QoL Question of Incontinence Questionnaire Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Module
- IIEF-EF
Erectile Function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function
- PROM
Patient Reported Outcome Measure
- QoL
Quality of life
Authors’ contributions
AS, conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, paper writing. LK, acquisition of data and analysis of data, paper writing. RD, drafting the manuscript and revising it critically. AR, conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data. MR, involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically. PR, analysis and interpretation of data. MF, conception and design, drafting the manuscript and revising it critically. OE, conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, paper writing and drafting the manuscript. All authors have read and approved of the final version and the publication of the manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All procedures performed in this study comply with the guidelines for human studies and welfare regulations. Subjects have given their written consent.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Armin Soave, armin.soave@googlemail.com.
Luis Kluth, Email: l.kluth@uke.de.
Roland Dahlem, Email: r.dahlem@uke.de.
Amelie Rohwer, Email: amelie.rohwer@google.com.
Michael Rink, Email: m.rink@uke.de.
Philipp Reiss, Email: p.reiss@uke.de.
Margit Fisch, Email: m.fisch@uke.de.
Oliver Engel, Phone: +49-40-7410 53442, Email: o.engel@uke.de.
References
- 1.Chapple C, Andrich D, Atala A, et al. SIU/ICUD consultation on urethral strictures: the Management of Anterior Urethral Stricture Disease Using Substitution Urethroplasty. Urology. 2014;83:S31–S47. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mundy AR, Andrich DE. Urethral strictures. BJU Int. 2011;107:6–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09800.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ahyai SA, Schmid M, Kuhl M, et al. Outcomes of ventral Onlay buccal mucosa graft Urethroplasty in patients after radiotherapy. J Urol. 2015;194:441–446. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Marshall SD, Raup VT, Brandes SB. Dorsal inlay buccal mucosal graft (Asopa) urethroplasty for anterior urethral stricture. Transl Androl Urol. 2015;4:10–15. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2015.01.05. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Pfalzgraf D, Kluth L, Isbarn H, et al. The Barbagli technique: 3-year experience with a modified approach. BJU Int. 2013;111:E132–E136. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11399.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Soave A, Steurer S, Dahlem R, et al. Histopathological characteristics of buccal mucosa transplants in humans after engraftment to the urethra: a prospective study. J Urol. 2014;192:1725–1729. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.06.089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mangera A, Patterson JM, Chapple CR. A systematic review of graft augmentation Urethroplasty techniques for the treatment of anterior urethral strictures. Eur Urol. 2011;59:797–814. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kluth LA, Dahlem R, Reiss P, et al. Short-term outcome and morbidity of different contemporary Urethroplasty techniques—a preliminary comparison. J Endourol. 2013;27:925–929. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Barbagli G, Kulkarni SB, Fossati N, et al. Long-term Followup and deterioration rate of anterior substitution Urethroplasty. J Urol. 2014;192:808–813. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Elliott SP, Metro MJ, McAninch JW. Long-term Followup of the ventrally placed buccal mucosa Onlay graft in bulbar urethral reconstruction. J Urol. 2003;169:1754–1757. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000057800.61876.9b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kellner DS, Fracchia JA, Armenakas NA. Ventral onlay buccal mucosal grafts for anterior urethral strictures: long-term followup. J Urol. 2004;171:726–729. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000103500.21743.89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Jackson MJ, Sciberras J, Mangera A, et al. Defining a patient-reported outcome measure for urethral stricture surgery. Eur Urol. 2011;60:60–68. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kluth LA, Dahlem R, Becker A, et al. Psychometric validation of a German language version of a PROM for urethral stricture surgery and preliminary testing of supplementary ED and UI constructs. World J Urol. 2015;34:369–375. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1610-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Riechardt S, Fisch M. Two-stage urethroplasty with buccal mucosa. BJU Int. 2012;109:150–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10842.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Riechardt S, Pfalzgraf D, Dahlem R, et al. Dorsal buccal mucosal inlay for penile urethroplasty. BJU Int. 2009;103:1444–1447. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08557.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Donovan JL, Abrams P, Peters TJ, et al. The ICS-'BPH' study: the psychometric validity and reliability of the ICSmale questionnaire. Br J Urol. 1996;77:554–562. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.93013.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Donovan JL, Peters T, Abrams P, et al. Scoring the short form ICSmaleSF questionnaire. International continence society. J Urol. 2000;164:1948–1955. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66926-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.EurQoL Group EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, et al. The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1997;49:822–830. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Jackson MJ, Chaudhury I, Mangera A, et al. A prospective patient-centred evaluation of Urethroplasty for anterior urethral stricture using a validated patient-reported outcome measure. Eur Urol. 2013;64:777–782. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.04.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Erickson BA, Wysock JS, McVary KT, et al. Erectile function, sexual drive, and ejaculatory function after reconstructive surgery for anterior urethral stricture disease. BJU Int. 2007;99:607–611. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06669.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Sharma V, Kumar S, Mandal AK, et al. A study on sexual function of men with anterior urethral stricture before and after treatment. Urol Int. 2011;87:341–345. doi: 10.1159/000330268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Erickson BA, Granieri MA, Meeks JJ, et al. Prospective analysis of erectile dysfunction after anterior Urethroplasty: incidence and recovery of function. J Urol. 2010;183:657–661. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Dogra PN, Saini AK, Seth A. Erectile dysfunction after anterior Urethroplasty: a prospective analysis of incidence and probability of recovery—single-center experience. Urology. 2011;78:78–81. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Blaschko SD, Sanford MT, Cinman NM, et al. De novo erectile dysfunction after anterior urethroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2013;112:655–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11741.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Levine MA, Kinnaird AS, Rourke KF. Revision Urethroplasty success is comparable to primary Urethroplasty: a comparative analysis. Urology. 2014;84:928–932. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.05.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Han JS, Liu J, Hofer MD, et al. Risk of urethral stricture recurrence increases over time after urethroplasty. Int J Urol. 2015;22:695–699. doi: 10.1111/iju.12781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Breyer BN, McAninch JW, Whitson JM, et al. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for long-term Urethroplasty outcome. J Urol. 2010;183:613–617. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hoy NY, Kinnaird A, Rourke KF. Expanded use of a dorsal onlay augmented anastomotic Urethroplasty with buccal mucosa for long segment bulbar urethral strictures: analysis of outcomes and complications. Urology. 2013;81:1357–1361. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Rourke K, McKinny S, St. Martin B. Effect of wound closure on buccal mucosal graft harvest site morbidity: results of a randomized prospective trial. Urology. 2012;79:443–447. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.08.073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Statistical data output of the present study is available from the corresponding author on request.