| |
著者: Altaf Mangera, Jacob M Patterson, Christopher R Chapple
雑誌名: Eur Urol. 2011 May;59(5):797-814. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.010. Epub 2011 Feb 24.
Abstract/Text
CONTEXT: Reconstructive surgeons who perform urethroplasty have a variety of techniques in their armamentarium that may be used according to factors such as aetiology, stricture position, and length. No one technique is recommended.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the reported outcomes of the various techniques for graft augmentation urethroplasty according to site of surgery.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed an updated systematic review of the Medline literature from 1985 to date and classified the data according to the site of surgery and technique used. Data are also presented on the type of graft used and the follow-up methodology used by each centre.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: More than 2000 anterior urethroplasty procedures have been described in the literature. When considering the bulbar urethra there is no significant difference between the average success rates of the dorsal and the ventral onlay procedures, 88.4% and 88.8% at 42.2 and 34.4 mo in 934 and 563 patients, respectively. The lateral onlay technique has only been described in six patients and has a reported success rate of 83% at 77 mo. The Asopa and Palminteri techniques have been described in 89 and 53 patients with a success rate of 86.7% and 90.1% at 28.9 and 21.9 mo, respectively. When considering penile strictures, the success rate of the two-stage penile technique is significantly better than the one-stage penile technique, 90.5% versus 75.7% as calculated for 129 and 432 patients, respectively, although the follow-up of one-stage procedures was longer at 32.8 mo compared with 22.2 mo.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence in the literature of a difference between one-stage techniques for urethroplasty of the bulbar urethra. The two-stage technique has better reported outcomes than a one-stage approach for penile urethroplasty but has a shorter follow-up.
Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PMID 21353379 Eur Urol. 2011 May;59(5):797-814. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.010. Epub 2011 Feb 24.
|
