Nima Baradaran1, Kirkpatrick B Fergus2, Rachel A Moses3, Darshan P Patel3, Thomas W Gaither2, Bryan B Voelzke4, Thomas G Smith5, Bradley A Erickson6, Sean P Elliott7, Nejd F Alsikafi8, Alex J Vanni9, Jill Buckley10, Lee C Zhao11, Jeremy B Myers3, Benjamin N Breyer12. 1. Department of Urology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Department of Urology, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, University of California San Francisco, 1001 Potrero Suite 3A, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA. 3. Division of Urology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 4. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Department of Urology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 7. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 8. Uropartners, Gurnee, IL, USA. 9. Department of Urology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA. 10. Department of Urology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 11. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 12. Department of Urology, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, University of California San Francisco, 1001 Potrero Suite 3A, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA. benjamin.breyer@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the functional Queryoutcome of patients with cystoscopic recurrence of stricture post-urethroplasty and to evaluate the role of cystoscopy as initial screening tool to predict future failure. METHODS: Cases with cystoscopy data after anterior urethroplasty in a multi-institutional database were retrospectively studied. Based on cystoscopic evaluation, performed within 3-months post-urethroplasty, patients were categorized as small-caliber (SC) stricture recurrence: stricture unable to be passed by standard cystoscope, large-caliber (LC) stricture accommodating a cystoscope, and no recurrence. We assessed the cumulative probability of intervention and the quality of life scores in association with cystoscopic recurrence 1-year post-urethroplasty. Patients with history of hypospadias, perineal urethrostomy, urethral fistula, and meatal pathology were excluded. RESULTS: From a total of 2630 men in our cohort, 1054 patients met the inclusion criteria: normal (n = 740), LC recurrence (n = 178), and SC recurrence (n = 136) based on the first cystoscopic evaluation performed at median 111 days postoperatively. Median follow-up was 350 days (IQR 121-617) after urethroplasty. Cystoscopic recurrence was significantly associated with secondary interventions (2.7%, 6.2%, 33.8% in normal, LC, and SC groups, respectively). Quality of life variables were not statistically significantly different among the three study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with cystoscopic recurrence do not need an intervention after initial urethroplasty. Despite good negative predictive value, cystoscopy alone may be a poor screening test for stricture recurrence defined by patient symptoms and need for secondary interventions.
PURPOSE: To assess the functional Queryoutcome of patients with cystoscopic recurrence of stricture post-urethroplasty and to evaluate the role of cystoscopy as initial screening tool to predict future failure. METHODS: Cases with cystoscopy data after anterior urethroplasty in a multi-institutional database were retrospectively studied. Based on cystoscopic evaluation, performed within 3-months post-urethroplasty, patients were categorized as small-caliber (SC) stricture recurrence: stricture unable to be passed by standard cystoscope, large-caliber (LC) stricture accommodating a cystoscope, and no recurrence. We assessed the cumulative probability of intervention and the quality of life scores in association with cystoscopic recurrence 1-year post-urethroplasty. Patients with history of hypospadias, perineal urethrostomy, urethral fistula, and meatal pathology were excluded. RESULTS: From a total of 2630 men in our cohort, 1054 patients met the inclusion criteria: normal (n = 740), LC recurrence (n = 178), and SC recurrence (n = 136) based on the first cystoscopic evaluation performed at median 111 days postoperatively. Median follow-up was 350 days (IQR 121-617) after urethroplasty. Cystoscopic recurrence was significantly associated with secondary interventions (2.7%, 6.2%, 33.8% in normal, LC, and SC groups, respectively). Quality of life variables were not statistically significantly different among the three study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with cystoscopic recurrence do not need an intervention after initial urethroplasty. Despite good negative predictive value, cystoscopy alone may be a poor screening test for stricture recurrence defined by patient symptoms and need for secondary interventions.
Authors: Joceline S Liu; Matthias D Hofer; Daniel T Oberlin; Jaclyn Milose; Sarah C Flury; Allen F Morey; Chris M Gonzalez Journal: Urology Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Lindsay A Hampson; Tracy K Lin; Leslie Wilson; Isabel E Allen; Thomas W Gaither; Benjamin N Breyer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Hunter Wessells; Keith W Angermeier; Sean Elliott; Christopher M Gonzalez; Ron Kodama; Andrew C Peterson; James Reston; Keith Rourke; John T Stoffel; Alex J Vanni; Bryan B Voelzke; Lee Zhao; Richard A Santucci Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher A Tam; Bryan B Voelzke; Sean P Elliott; Jeremy B Myers; Christopher D McClung; Alex J Vanni; Benjamin N Breyer; Bradley A Erickson Journal: Urology Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Matthew J Jackson; John Sciberras; Altaf Mangera; Andrew Brett; Nick Watkin; James M O N'dow; Christopher R Chapple; Daniela E Andrich; Robert S Pickard; Anthony R Mundy Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew J Jackson; Ishaan Chaudhury; Altaf Mangera; Andrew Brett; Nick Watkin; Christopher R Chapple; Daniela E Andrich; Robert S Pickard; Anthony R Mundy Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ramón Virasoro; Jessica M DeLong; Rafael E Estrella; Merycarla Pichardo; Ramón Rodriguez Lay; Gustavo Espino; Sean P Elliott Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Lauren A Beeder; Grayden S Cook; Samantha W Nealon; Shervin Badkhshan; Sarah C Sanders; Dylan P Perito; Steven J Hudak; Allen F Morey Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-30 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Rachel A Mann; Ramón Virasoro; Jessica M DeLong; Rafael E Estrella; Merycarla Pichardo; Ramón Rodríguez Lay; Gustavo Espino; Joshua D Roth; Sean P Elliott Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Michael Daneshvar; Jay Simhan; Stephen Blakely; Javier C Angulo; Jacob Lucas; Craig Hunter; Justin Chee; Damian Lopez Alvarado; Erick Alejandro Ramirez Perez; Alosh Madala; Juan José de Benito; Francisco Martins; João Felício; Paul Rusilko; Brian J Flynn; Dmitriy Nikolavsky Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Connor G Policastro; Jay Simhan; Francisco E Martins; Nicolaas Lumen; Krishnan Venkatesan; Javier C Angulo; Shubham Gupta; Paul Rusilko; Erick Alejandro Ramírez Pérez; Kirk Redger; Brian J Flynn; Michael Hughes; Stephen Blakely; Dmitriy Nikolavsky Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Malte W Vetterlein; Almut Gödde; Luis A Kluth; Valentin Zumstein; Philipp Gild; Phillip Marks; Armin Soave; Christian P Meyer; Silke Riechardt; Roland Dahlem; Margit Fisch Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 4.226