Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Nov;24(61):1–110. doi: 10.3310/hta24610

Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy for recurrent urethral stricture in men: the OPEN RCT.

Robert Pickard, Beatriz Goulao, Sonya Carnell, Jing Shen, Graeme MacLennan, John Norrie, Matt Breckons, Luke Vale, Paul Whybrow, Tim Rapley, Rebecca Forbes, Stephanie Currer, Mark Forrest, Jennifer Wilkinson, Elaine McColl, Daniela Andrich, Stewart Barclay, Jonathan Cook, Anthony Mundy, James N'Dow, Stephen Payne, Nick Watkin
PMCID: PMC7750862  PMID: 33228846

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Men who suffer recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture have to decide between endoscopic urethrotomy and open urethroplasty to manage their urinary symptoms. Evidence of relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess benefit, harms and cost-effectiveness of open urethroplasty compared with endoscopic urethrotomy as treatment for recurrent urethral stricture in men.

DESIGN

Parallel-group, open-label, patient-randomised trial of allocated intervention with 6-monthly follow-ups over 24 months. Target sample size was 210 participants providing outcome data. Participants, clinicians and local research staff could not be blinded to allocation. Central trial staff were blinded when needed.

SETTING

UK NHS with recruitment from 38 hospital sites.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 222 men requiring operative treatment for recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture who had received at least one previous intervention for stricture.

INTERVENTIONS

A centralised randomisation system using random blocks allocated participants 1 : 1 to open urethroplasty (experimental group) or endoscopic urethrotomy (control group).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary clinical outcome was control of urinary symptoms. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 24 months. The main secondary outcome was the need for reintervention for stricture recurrence.

RESULTS

The mean difference in the area under the curve of repeated measurement of voiding symptoms scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 24 (severe symptoms) between the two groups was -0.36 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.78 to 1.02; p = 0.6]. Mean voiding symptom scores improved between baseline and 24 months after randomisation from 13.4 [standard deviation (SD) 4.5] to 6 (SD 5.5) for urethroplasty group and from 13.2 (SD 4.7) to 6.4 (SD 5.3) for urethrotomy. Reintervention was less frequent and occurred earlier in the urethroplasty group (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89; p = 0.02). There were two postoperative complications requiring reinterventions in the group that received urethroplasty and five, including one death from pulmonary embolism, in the group that received urethrotomy. Over 24 months, urethroplasty cost on average more than urethrotomy (cost difference £2148, 95% CI £689 to £3606) and resulted in a similar number of QALYs (QALY difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.14). Therefore, based on current evidence, urethrotomy is considered to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

We were able to include only 69 (63%) of the 109 men allocated to urethroplasty and 90 (80%) of the 113 men allocated to urethrotomy in the primary complete-case intention-to-treat analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The similar magnitude of symptom improvement seen for the two procedures over 24 months of follow-up shows that both provide effective symptom control. The lower likelihood of further intervention favours urethroplasty, but this had a higher cost over the 24 months of follow-up and was unlikely to be considered cost-effective.

FUTURE WORK

Formulate methods to incorporate short-term disutility data into cost-effectiveness analysis. Survey pathways of care for men with urethral stricture, including the use of enhanced recovery after urethroplasty. Establish a pragmatic follow-up schedule to allow national audit of outcomes following urethral surgery with linkage to NHS Hospital Episode Statistics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98009168.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

The urethra carries urine from the bladder to the tip of the penis. Men can develop a condition called urethral stricture when part of the urethra narrows due to scarring. This can lead to difficulties in passing urine and can recur. There are two operations for urethral stricture. The standard approach is endoscopic urethrotomy. The alternative is open urethroplasty. This study wanted to find out which operation was preferable in terms of symptom control, time before further surgery and which operation was best value for the NHS. All aspects of the study were informed by patients. Two hundred and twenty-two men who had received at least one previous operation for stricture took part. The choice of operation was decided by chance (randomisation). Of these men, 113 were randomised to urethrotomy and 109 were randomised to urethroplasty. Following their operation, the men filled in questionnaires every 3–6 months for 2 years about their symptoms and if any further surgery was needed. The two groups were then compared. Of the 222 men who took part, 159 provided enough information for inclusion in the comparison (90 were in the urethrotomy group and 69 were in the urethroplasty group). The improvement over time in urinary symptoms was similar for the two groups. Men in the urethrotomy group were twice as likely to need a further operation over the 2-year study period. Very few men experienced serious complications. This study showed that both operations led to symptom improvement for men with recurrent urethral stricture. Urethroplasty, however, appears unlikely to offer good value for money for the NHS. Men needing treatment for recurrent urethral stricture can use this information to weigh up the pros and cons of each operation to decide with their clinical team which one to undergo.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Stephenson R, Carnell S, Johnson N, Brown R, Wilkinson J, Mundy A, et al. Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy – clarifying the management of men with recurrent urethral stricture (the OPEN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:600. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1120-4 doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1120-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Whybrow P, Pickard R, Hrisos S, Rapley T. Equipoise across the patient population: optimising recruitment to a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2017;18:140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1711-8 doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1711-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Whybrow P, Rapley T, Pickard R, Hrisos S. How men manage bulbar urethral stricture by concealing urinary symptoms. Qual Health Res 2015;25:1435–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315573208 doi: 10.1177/1049732315573208. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Watkin N, Patel P. The diagnosis and management of acquired urethral stricture disease. Surgery 2017;35:313–23.
  5. Tritschler S, Roosen A, Füllhase C, Stief CG, Rübben H. Urethral stricture: etiology, investigation and treatments. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2013;110:220–6. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2013.0220 doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. Santucci R, Eisenberg L. Urethrotomy has a much lower success rate than previously reported. J Urol 2010;183:1859–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.020 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.020. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Anger JT, Buckley JC, Santucci RA, Elliott SP, Saigal CS, Urologic Diseases in America Project. Trends in stricture management among male Medicare beneficiaries: underuse of urethroplasty? Urology 2011;77:481–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.055 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. NHS Digital. Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity, 2016–2017. 2017. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/ (accessed 20 March 2018).
  9. Pansadoro V, Emiliozzi P. Internal urethrotomy in the management of anterior urethral strictures: long-term followup. J Urol 1996;156:73–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65942-1 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65942-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Barbagli G, Palminteri E, Lazzeri M, Guazzoni G, Turini D. Long-term outcome of urethroplasty after failed urethrotomy versus primary repair. J Urol 2001;165:1918–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66242-8 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66242-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Kessler TM, Schreiter F, Kralidis G, Heitz M, Olianas R, Fisch M. Long-term results of surgery for urethral stricture: a statistical analysis. J Urol 2003;170:840–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000080842.99332.94 doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000080842.99332.94. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. O’Riordan A, Narahari R, Kumar V, Pickard R. Outcome of dorsal buccal graft urethroplasty for recurrent bulbar urethral strictures. BJU Int 2008;102:1148–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07763.x doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07763.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Chapple C, Andrich D, Atala A, Barbagli G, Cavalcanti A, Kulkarni S, et al. SIU/ICUD consultation on urethral strictures: the management of anterior urethral stricture disease using substitution urethroplasty. Urology 2014;83(Suppl. 3):31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.012 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Chapple C. Surgical Techniques In Substitution Urethroplasty Using Buccal Mucosa. 2011. URL: www.youtube.com/watch?v=It3J0U6tNQs (accessed 9 May 2018).
  15. Buckley JC, Heyns C, Gilling P, Carney J. SIU/ICUD consultation on urethral strictures: dilation, internal urethrotomy, and stenting of male anterior urethral strictures. Urology 2014;83(Suppl. 3):18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.08.075 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.08.075. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Shergill U. Optical Urethrotomy. 2011. URL: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YijhQEHpbs (accessed 5 May 2018).
  17. Sachse H. [Treatment of urethral stricture: transurethral slit in view using sharp section.] Fortschr Med 1974;92:12–15. [PubMed]
  18. Jackson MJ, Veeratterapillay R, Harding CK, Dorkin TJ. Intermittent self-dilatation for urethral stricture disease in males. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;12:CD010258. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010258.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010258.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Wong SS, Aboumarzouk OM, Narahari R, O’Riordan A, Pickard R. Simple urethral dilatation, endoscopic urethrotomy, and urethroplasty for urethral stricture disease in adult men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD006934. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006934.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006934.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Wessells H, Angermeier KW, Elliott S, Gonzalez CM, Kodama R, Peterson AC, et al. Male urethral stricture: American Urological Association guideline. J Urol 2017;197:182–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.087 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.087. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Breyer BN, Edwards TC, Patrick DL, Voelzke BB. Comprehensive qualitative assessment of urethral stricture disease: toward the development of a patient centered outcome measure. J Urol 2017;198:1113–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.05.077 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.05.077. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Rapp DE, Chanduri K, Infusino G, Hoda ZA, Orvieto MA, Elliott SP, Alsikafi NF. Internet survey of management trends of urethral strictures. Urol Int 2008;80:287–91. https://doi.org/10.1159/000127343 doi: 10.1159/000127343. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Ferguson GG, Bullock TL, Anderson RE, Blalock RE, Brandes SB. Minimally invasive methods for bulbar urethral strictures: a survey of members of the American Urological Association. Urology 2011;78:701–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.02.051 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.02.051. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. van Leeuwen MA, Brandenburg JJ, Kok ET, Vijverberg PL, Bosch JL. Management of adult anterior urethral stricture disease: nationwide survey among urologists in the Netherlands. Eur Urol 2011;60:159–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.016 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Granieri MA, Peterson AC. The management of bulbar urethral stricture disease before referral for definitive repair: have practice patterns changed? Urology 2014;84:946–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.014 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Bullock TL, Brandes SB. Adult anterior urethral strictures: a national practice patterns survey of board certified urologists in the United States. J Urol 2007;177:685–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.052 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.052. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Greenwell TJ, Castle C, Andrich DE, MacDonald JT, Nicol DL, Mundy AR. Repeat urethrotomy and dilation for the treatment of urethral stricture are neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. J Urol 2004;172:275–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000132156.76403.8f doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000132156.76403.8f. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Rourke KF, Jordan GH. Primary urethral reconstruction: the cost minimized approach to the bulbous urethral stricture. J Urol 2005;173:1206–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000154971.05286.81 doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000154971.05286.81. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Wright JL, Wessells H, Nathens AB, Hollingworth W. What is the most cost-effective treatment for 1 to 2-cm bulbar urethral strictures: societal approach using decision analysis. Urology 2006;67:889–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.11.003 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Jackson MJ, Sciberras J, Mangera A, Brett A, Watkin N, N’dow JM, et al. Defining a patient-reported outcome measure for urethral stricture surgery. Eur Urol 2011;60:60–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Kluth LA, Dahlem R, Becker A, Schmid M, Soave A, Rosenbaum C, 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 2016;34:369–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1610-8 doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1610-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Önol FF, Bindayi A, Tahra A, Basibuyuk I, Onol SY. Turkish validation of the urethral stricture surgery specific patient-reported outcome measure (USS-PROM) with supplemental assessment of erectile function and morbidity due to oral graft harvesting. Neurourol Urodyn 2017;36:2089–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23243 doi: 10.1002/nau.23243. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Bazaev VV, Shibaev AN, Pavlova YV. [Validation of the Russian version of the questionnaire to assess the effectiveness of surgical treatment of patients with anterior urethral stricture (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Urethral Stricture Surgery (PROM-USS): a pilot study.] Urologiia 2015;5:15–19. [PubMed]
  34. Puche-Sanz I, Martín-Way D, Flores-Martín J, Expósito-Ruiz M, Vicente-Prados J, Nogueras-Ocaña M, et al. Psychometric validation of the Spanish version of the USS-PROM questionnaire for patients who undergo anterior urethral surgery. Actas Urol Esp 2016;40:322–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2016.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2016.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Lucas ET, Koff WJ, Rosito TE, Berger M, Bortolini T, Neto BS. Assessment of satisfaction and Quality of Life using self-reported questionnaires after urethroplasty: a prospective analysis. Int Braz J Urol 2017;43:304–10. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0207 doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  36. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A. The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997;49:822–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0 doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  38. Erickson BA, Breyer BN, McAninch JW. Changes in uroflowmetry maximum flow rates after urethral reconstructive surgery as a means to predict for stricture recurrence. J Urol 2011;186:1934–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.010 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ 2018;27:7–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564 doi: 10.1002/hec.3564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  40. Great Britain. Data Protection Act 1998. London: The Stationery Office; 1998.
  41. White IR, Kalaitzaki E, Thompson SG. Allowing for missing outcome data and incomplete uptake of randomised interventions, with application to an Internet-based alcohol trial. Stat Med 2011;30:3192–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4360 doi: 10.1002/sim.4360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Bell ML, King MT, Fairclough DL. Bias in area under the curve for longitudinal clinical trials with missing patient reported outcome data: summary measures versus summary statistics. SAGE Open 2014;4:2158244014534858. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014534858 doi: 10.1177/2158244014534858. [DOI]
  43. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  44. Group DS. A proposed charter for clinical trial data monitoring committees: helping them to do their job well. Lancet 2005;365:711–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)70939-9 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)70939-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Goulao B, Carnell S, Shen S, MacLennan G, Norrie J, Cook J, et al. Surgical treatment for recurrent bulbar urethral stricture: a randomised open-label superiority trial of open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy (the OPEN trial). Eur Urol 2020;78:572–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. The British Association of Urological Surgeons. Patients: Surgical Outcomes Audit. Grading of Surgical Complications. URL: www.baus.org.uk/patients/surgical_outcomes/grading_of_surgical_complications.aspx (accessed 29 November 2019).
  47. McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Grant AM, Cook JA, et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials 2006;7:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-7-9 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Drabble SJ, Rudolph A, Hewison J. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002889. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002889 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  49. Fletcher B, Gheorghe A, Moore D, Wilson S, Damery S. Improving the recruitment activity of clinicians in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2012;2:e000496. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  50. Elliott D, Husbands S, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Donovan JL. Understanding and improving recruitment to randomised controlled trials: qualitative research approaches. Eur Urol 2017;72:789–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.036 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.036. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrøm M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002360. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  52. Wade J, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: opening the ‘black box’of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:2018–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Donovan JL, de Salis I, Toerien M, Paramasivan S, Hamdy FC, Blazeby JM. The intellectual challenges and emotional consequences of equipoise contributed to the fragility of recruitment in six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:912–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, Williamson P. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials 2014;15:399. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-399 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Kaur G, Hutchison I, Mehanna H, Williamson P, Shaw R, Tudur Smith C. Barriers to recruitment for surgical trials in head and neck oncology: a survey of trial investigators. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002625. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002625 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  56. Canvin K, Jacoby A. Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial. Trials 2006;7:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-7-32 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  57. McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials 2010;11:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-31 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  58. Murdoch M, McColl E, Howel D, Deverill M, Buckley BS, Lucas M, et al. INVESTIGATE-I (INVasive Evaluation before Surgical Treatment of Incontinence Gives Added Therapeutic Effect?): study protocol for a mixed methods study to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of the clinical utility of invasive urodynamic testing. Trials 2011;12:169. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-169 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  59. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Brindle L, Jacoby A, Peters T, et al. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ 2002;325:766–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766 doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  60. Rapley T. Some Pragmatics of Data Analysis. In Silverman D, editor. Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2010. pp. 273–90.
  61. Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Probl 1965;12:436–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843 doi: 10.2307/798843. [DOI]
  62. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage; 1994.
  63. Clarke AE. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. London: Sage; 2005.
  64. Weitzman EA. Analyzing qualitative data with computer software. Health Serv Res 1999;34:1241. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  65. Courtenay WH. Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: a theory of gender and health. Soc Sci Med 2000;50:1385–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1 doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. Bower P, King M, Nazareth I, Lampe F, Sibbald B. Patient preferences in randomised controlled trials: conceptual framework and implications for research. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:685–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.010 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  67. Huddart RA, Hall E, Lewis R, Birtle A, on behalf of the SPARE Trial Management Group. Life and death of spare (selective bladder preservation against radical excision): reflections on why the spare trial closed. BJU Int 2010;106:753–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09537.x doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09537.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:1143–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00141-9 doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00141-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  69. Locock L, Smith L. Personal benefit, or benefiting others? Deciding whether to take part in clinical trials. Clin Trials 2011;8:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774510392257 doi: 10.1177/1740774510392257. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Wilson C, Rooshenas L, Paramasivan S, Elliott D, Jepson M, Strong S, et al. Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework. Trials 2018;19:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2413-6 doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2413-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  71. Blencowe NS, Cook JA, Pinkney T, Rogers C, Reeves BC, Blazeby JM. Delivering successful randomized controlled trials in surgery: methods to optimize collaboration and study design. Clin Trials 2017;14:211–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774516687272 doi: 10.1177/1740774516687272. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Rooshenas l, Townsend D, Wade J, Wilson C, Blazeby J, Donovan J. Equipoise in action: a qualitative investigation across six pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Trials 2015;16:115. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-P115 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-P115. [DOI]
  73. Paramasivan S, Rogers CA, Welbourn R, Byrne JP, Salter N, Mahon D, et al. Enabling recruitment success in bariatric surgical trials: pilot phase of the By-Band-Sleeve study. Int J Obes 2017;41:1654–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2017.153 doi: 10.1038/ijo.2017.153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, et al. A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Med Care Res Rev 2012;69:123–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558711430690 doi: 10.1177/1077558711430690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  75. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  76. Office for National Statistics. Consumer Prices Index. Newport: ONS; 2018. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/l522/mm23 (accessed April 2018).
  77. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2017.
  78. ISD Scotland. Theatre Services. 2018. URL: www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Finance/Costs/Detailed-Tables/Theatres.asp (accessed 9 May 2018).
  79. NHS Business Services Authority. NHS Dictionary of Medicines and Devices Database. URL: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/pharmacies-gp-practices-and-appliance-contractors/dictionary-medicines-and-devices-dmd (accessed May 2018).
  80. Matthews J, Altman D, Campbell M, Royston P. Analysis of serial measurements in medical research: authors’ reply. BMJ 1990;300:680. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.300.6725.680-a doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6725.680-a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  81. Jansen SJ, Kievit J, Nooij MA, Stiggelbout AM. Stability of patients’ preferences for chemotherapy: the impact of experience. Med Decis Making 2001;21:295–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X0102100405 doi: 10.1177/0272989X0102100405. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. Locadia M, Stalmeier PF, Oort FJ, Prins MH, Sprangers MA, Bossuyt PM. A comparison of 3 valuation methods for temporary health states in patients treated with oral anticoagulants. Med Decis Making 2004;24:625–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X04271042 doi: 10.1177/0272989X04271042. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, Vliet Vlieland TP, Leer JW, Nooy MA, Kievit J. Patients’ utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Making 1998;18:391–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9801800406 doi: 10.1177/0272989X9801800406. [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986;5:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2 doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  85. Shen J, Breckons M, Vale L, Pickard R, for the OPEN trial investigators. Using time trade-off methods to elicit short-term utilities associated with treatments for bulbar urethral stricture. Pharmacoecon Open 2019;3:551–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-019-0133-4 doi: 10.1007/s41669-019-0133-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  86. Poelaert F, Oosterlinck W, Spinoit A-F, Lumen N. Duration of urethral catheterization after urethroplasty: how long is enough? Minerva Urol Nefrol 2017;69:372–6. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02639-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  87. Consolo MJ, Syed KK, Robison C, McFadden J, Shalowitz DI, Brown GA, et al. Barriers to accessing urethroplasty. Rev Urol 2016;18:188–93. https://doi.org/10.3909/riu0731 doi: 10.3909/riu0731. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. MacDonald S, Haddad D, Choi A, Colaco M, Terlecki R. Anterior urethroplasty has transitioned to an outpatient procedure without serious rise in complications: data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Urology 2017;102:225–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.09.043 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.09.043. [DOI] [PubMed]
  89. Belsante MJ, Zhao LC, Hudak SJ, Lotan Y, Morey AF. Cost-effectiveness of risk stratified followup after urethral reconstruction: a decision analysis. J Urol 2013;190:1292–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.024 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Peeling WB. Diagnostic assessment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostate Suppl 1989;2:51–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.2990150507 doi: 10.1002/pros.2990150507. [DOI] [PubMed]
  91. Meeks JJ, Erickson BA, Granieri MA, Gonzalez CM. Stricture recurrence after urethroplasty: a systematic review. J Urol 2009;182:1266–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.06.027 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.06.027. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. Yıldırım ME, Kaynar M, Ozyuvali E, Badem H, Cakmak M, Kosem B, Cimentepe E. The effectiveness of local steroid injection after internal urethrotomy to avoid recurrence. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2016;87:295–8. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2015.4.295 doi: 10.4081/aiua.2015.4.295. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Mazdak H, Meshki I, Ghassami F. Effect of mitomycin C on anterior urethral stricture recurrence after internal urethrotomy. Eur Urol 2007;51:1089–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.038 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.038. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Mundy AR. Adjuncts to visual internal urethrotomy to reduce the recurrence rate of anterior urethral strictures. Eur Urol 2007;51:1467–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.061 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.061. [DOI] [PubMed]
  95. McNamara ER, Webster GD, Peterson AC. The UroLume stent revisited: the Duke experience. Urology 2013;82:933–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.017 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.017. [DOI] [PubMed]
  96. Zilberman M, Eberhart RC. Drug-eluting bioresorbable stents for various applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2006;8:153–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.8.013106.151418 doi: 10.1146/annurev.bioeng.8.013106.151418. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Horiguchi A. Substitution urethroplasty using oral mucosa graft for male anterior urethral stricture disease: current topics and reviews. Int J Urol 2017;24:493–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13356 doi: 10.1111/iju.13356. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Janye D. Synopsis of the FIAT Trial – The Fistula-In-Ano Trial. URL: www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-mds/trials/bctu/fiat/FIATTrialSynopsis.pdf (accessed 11 May 2018).
  99. Jhanwar A, Kumar M, Sankhwar SN, Prakash G. Holmium laser vs. conventional (cold knife) direct visual internal urethrotomy for short-segment bulbar urethral stricture: outcome analysis. Can Urol Assoc J 2016;10:E161–E164. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.3382 doi: 10.5489/cuaj.3382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Brazier J. Appendix 5.5 Example Extract From a Script for Eliciting Health State Valuations Using the TTO Board. In Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Saloman J, Tsuchita A, editors. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 134–7.

RESOURCES