Stricture Excision and Primary Anastomosis for Anterior Urethral Strictures

Differential expression of miRNAs involved in biological processes responsible for inflammation and immune response in lichen sclerosus urethral stricture disease

Purpose

To better understand the pathophysiology of lichen sclerosus (LS) urethral stricture disease (USD), we aimed to investigate expression profiles of microRNAs (miRNAs) in tissue samples from men undergoing urethroplasty.

Methods

Urethral stricture tissue was collected from 2005–2020. Histologic features diagnostic of LS were the basis of pathologic evaluation. Foci of areas diagnostic for LS or non-LS strictures were chosen for RNA evaluation. In an initial screening analysis, 13 LS urethral strictures and 13 non-LS strictures were profiled via miRNA RT-qPCR arrays for 752 unique miRNA. A validation analysis of 23 additional samples (9 LS and 14 non-LS) was performed for 15 miRNAs. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v25. Gene Ontology (GO) analysis was performed using DIANA-mirPath v. 3.0.

Results

In the screening analysis 143 miRNAs were detected for all samples. 27 were differentially expressed between the groups (false discovery p-value <0.01). 15 of these miRNAs individually demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC)>0.90 for distinguishing between between LS and non-LS strictures. 11-fold upregulation of MiR-155-5p specifically was found in LS vs. non-LS strictures (p<0.001, AUC = 1.0). In the validation analysis, 13 of the 15 miRNAs tested were confirmed to have differential expression (false discovery p-value <0.10).

Conclusions

To our knowledge this is the first study evaluating miRNA expression profiles in LS and non-LS USD. We identified several miRNAs that are differentially expressed in USD caused by LS vs other etiologies, which could potentially serve as biomarkers of LS USD. The top eight differentially expressed miRNAs have been linked to immune response processes as well as involvement in wound healing, primarily angiogenesis and fibrosis.

Erectile and Ejaculatory Dysfunction After Urethroplasty

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The goal of this paper was to evaluate the impact on erectile and ejaculatory function after anterior and posterior urethroplasty.

RECENT FINDINGS

With a rise in the use of urethroplasty, its impact on sexual function has come into question. For anterior urethroplasties, some degree of erectile dysfunction is common, but this tends to be transient, with most patients having a resolution of any de novo dysfunction by 12 months. Patients with posterior urethral strictures have a very high rate of erectile dysfunction prior to surgery and may show improvement after urethroplasty. Ejaculatory function tends to improve in patients due to alleviation of obstruction while some patients notice degradation in force of ejaculation. While urethroplasty has a minimal permanent effect on sexual function for most patients, there are some patients who notice improvement and others worsening. Patients should be counseled on these risks prior to urethroplasty.

[A CASE OF BULBAR URETHRAL STRICTURE SUCCESSFULLY TREATED WITH DORSOLATERAL ONLAY URETHROPLASTY USING A BUCCAL MUCOSA GRAFT]

A 19-year-old man was referred to our department because of repeated urinary retention. Urethroscopy and retrograde urethrography revealed a stricture 25 mm long at the mid to distal bulbar urethra. As he does not have any histories of trauma, urological procedure, sexually transmitted disease and lichen sclerosus, he was diagnosed as having an idiopathic bulbar urethral stricture. Therefore, we performed substitutional urethroplasty with buccal mucosa placed on the dorsolateral surface (one-sided dorsolateral onlay). The maximum flow rate by uroflowmetry and the International Prostate Symptom Score remarkably improved. His subjective symptom of ejaculatory function was also improved, while the erectile function was not affected. This is the first reported case of bulbar urethral stricture successfully treated with one-sided dorsolateral onlay urethroplasty using a buccal mucosa graft in our country.

Primary non-transecting bulbar urethroplasty long-term success rates are similar to transecting urethroplasty

OBJECTIVES

To review the long-term outcomes of transecting versus non-transecting urethroplasty to repair bulbar urethral strictures.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of 342 patients who underwent anterior urethroplasty performed by a single surgeon from 2003 to 2014. Patients were excluded from further analysis if there had been prior urethroplasty, stricture location outside the bulbous urethra, or age <18 years. In the transecting group, surgical techniques used included excision and primary anastomosis and augmented anastomotic urethroplasty. In the non-transecting group, surgical techniques used included non-transecting anastomotic urethroplasty and dorsal and/or ventral buccal grafting. The primary endpoint was stricture resolution in transecting vs. non-transecting bulbar urethroplasty. Success was defined as freedom from secondary procedures including dilation, urethrotomy, or repeat urethroplasty.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-two patients met inclusion criteria. At a mean follow-up of 65 months (range: 10-138 months), stricture-free recurrence in the transecting and non-transecting groups was similar, 83% (n = 85/102) and 82% (n = 41/50), respectively (p = 0.84). Surgical technique (p = 0.91), stricture length (p = 0.8), and etiology (p = 0.6) did not affect stricture recurrence rate on multivariate analysis. There was no difference detected in time to stricture recurrence (p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective series, transecting and non-transecting primary bulbar urethroplasty resulted in similar long-term stricture resolution rate. Prospective studies are needed to determine what differences may present in outcomes related to sexual function and long-term success.

The case against primary endoscopic realignment of pelvic fracture urethral injuries

Objectives

To review previous reports and present our experience on the outcomes after treating pelvic fracture urethral injuries (PFUIs) with primary endoscopic realignment (PER) vs. placing a suprapubic tube (SPT) with elective bulbomembranous anastomotic urethroplasty (BMAU).

Methods

We reviewed previous reports and identified articles that reported outcomes after PER vs. SPT and elective BMAU for patients who sustained PFUIs. We also present our institutional experience of treating patients who were referred after undergoing either form of treatment.

Results

The success rates for PER after PFUI are wide-ranging (11–86%), with variable definitions for a successful outcome. At our institution, for patients treated by SPT/BMAU, the mean time to a definitive resolution of stenosis was dramatically shorter (6 months, range 3–15) than for those treated with PER (122 months, range 4–574; P < 0.01). The vast majority of patients treated by PER required multiple endoscopic urethral interventions (median 4, range 1–36;P < 0.01) and/or had various other adverse events that were rare among the SPT/BMAU group (14/17, 82%, vs. 2/23, 9%;P < 0.05).

Conclusion

While PER occasionally results in urethral patency with no need for further intervention, the risk of delay in definitive treatment and the potential for adverse events have led to a preference for SPT and elective BMAU at our institution.