PURPOSE: This study directly compares peri-catheter retrograde urethrography (pcRUG) and voiding cysto-urethrography (VCUG) as early postoperative imaging after urethroplasty and aims to assess whether pcRUG is superior at avoiding catheter reinsertion. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, interventional study comparing pcRUG and VCUG after urethroplasty in a within-patient fashion. All participants were first evaluated with pcRUG and subsequently with VCUG, unless pcRUG revealed significant contrast extravasation warranting further catheter stay. The primary end-point was to assess whether pcRUG is superior at avoiding catheter reinsertion compared with VCUG. Secondary end-points included the amount of significant contrast extravasations missed on pcRUG and the differences in radiation exposure. RESULTS: 80 patients were included in this study. Median (IQR) interval between surgery and first postoperative imaging was 16 (9-16) days. In 14/80 (18%) patients, the pcRUG showed significant contrast extravasation and catheter reinsertion was avoided, while this percentage is 0 by default for VCUG (p < 0.001). In the other 66/80 (82%) patients, a VCUG was performed and 1/66 (1.5%) of these was considered as significant contrast extravasation. Notably, 9/66 (14%) of these patients could not void during the investigation. Median (IQR) dose of radiation exposure during pcRUG and VCUG was, respectively, 120 (84-161) mGy/cm2 and 241 (169-334) mGy/cm2 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After urethroplasty, pcRUG is a valuable alternative for VCUG as early postoperative imaging. It has a comparable diagnostic yield, averts the risk of having to reinsert the catheter, avoids the problem of patients being unable to void during the examination and requires significantly less radiation.
PURPOSE: This study directly compares peri-catheter retrograde urethrography (pcRUG) and voiding cysto-urethrography (VCUG) as early postoperative imaging after urethroplasty and aims to assess whether pcRUG is superior at avoiding catheter reinsertion. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, interventional study comparing pcRUG and VCUG after urethroplasty in a within-patient fashion. All participants were first evaluated with pcRUG and subsequently with VCUG, unless pcRUG revealed significant contrast extravasation warranting further catheter stay. The primary end-point was to assess whether pcRUG is superior at avoiding catheter reinsertion compared with VCUG. Secondary end-points included the amount of significant contrast extravasations missed on pcRUG and the differences in radiation exposure. RESULTS: 80 patients were included in this study. Median (IQR) interval between surgery and first postoperative imaging was 16 (9-16) days. In 14/80 (18%) patients, the pcRUG showed significant contrast extravasation and catheter reinsertion was avoided, while this percentage is 0 by default for VCUG (p < 0.001). In the other 66/80 (82%) patients, a VCUG was performed and 1/66 (1.5%) of these was considered as significant contrast extravasation. Notably, 9/66 (14%) of these patients could not void during the investigation. Median (IQR) dose of radiation exposure during pcRUG and VCUG was, respectively, 120 (84-161) mGy/cm2 and 241 (169-334) mGy/cm2 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After urethroplasty, pcRUG is a valuable alternative for VCUG as early postoperative imaging. It has a comparable diagnostic yield, averts the risk of having to reinsert the catheter, avoids the problem of patients being unable to void during the examination and requires significantly less radiation.