| |
著者: Travis L Bullock, Steven B Brandes
雑誌名: J Urol. 2007 Feb;177(2):685-90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.052.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: We determined the methods and patterns of the evaluation of and treatment for adult anterior urethral stricture disease by practicing urologists in the United States.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nationwide survey of practicing members of the American Urological Association was performed by a mailed questionnaire. A total of 1,262 urologists were randomly selected from all 50 states, of whom 431 (34%) completed the questionnaire.
RESULTS: Most urologists (63%) treat 6 to 20 urethral strictures yearly. The most common procedures used by those surveyed for urethral strictures were dilation (92.8%), optical internal urethrotomy (85.6%) and endourethral stent (23.4%). Minimally invasive procedures are used more frequently that any open urethroplasty technique. Furthermore, most urologists (57.8%) do not perform urethroplasty surgery. When used, the most common urethroplasty surgeries performed were end-to-end anastomotic urethroplasty, perineal urethrostomy and ventral skin graft urethroplasty. Few urologists (4.2%) performed buccal mucosa grafts. For a long bulbar urethral stricture or short bulbar urethral stricture refractory to internal urethrotomy 20% to 29% of respondents would refer to another urologist, while 31% to 33% would continue to manage the stricture by minimally invasive means despite predictable failure. Of the urologists 74% believed that the literature supports a reconstructive surgical ladder, in which urethroplasty is only performed after repeat failure of endoscopic methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Most urologists in the United States have little experience with urethroplasty surgery. Most urologists erroneously believe that the literature supports a reconstructive surgical ladder for urethral stricture management. Unfamiliarity with the literature and inexperience with urethroplasty surgery have made the use of endoscopic methods inappropriately common.
PMID 17222657 J Urol. 2007 Feb;177(2):685-90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.052.
|
