Author/Authors :
Ignjatovic، Ivan نويسنده Clinical Center Nis/Clinic of Urology, Zorana Djindjica 46, 18000 Nis, Serbia , , Stojkovic، Ivica نويسنده Clinical Center Nis/Clinic of Urology, Zorana Djindjica 46, 18000 Nis, Serbia , , Basic، Dragoslav نويسنده Clinical Center Nis/Clinic of Urology, Zorana Djindjica 46, 18000 Nis, Serbia. , , Stankovic، Jablan نويسنده Clinical Center Nis/Clinic of Urology, Zorana Djindjica 46, 18000 Nis, Serbia. , , Potic، Milan نويسنده Clinical Center Nis/Clinic of Urology, Zorana Djindjica 46, 18000 Nis, Serbia , , Dinic، Ljubomir نويسنده Clinical Center Nis/Clinic of Urology, Zorana Djindjica 46, 18000 Nis, Serbia ,
Abstract :
Purpose: To compare urethral reconstructions in patients after several years with or without
blind urethral dilatation.
Materials and Methods: A retrospective study of 107 patients with urethral reconstructions
was performed. Sixty patients with a long history of blind urethral dilatation (group 1) were
compared with 47 patients without prior dilatations (group 2).
Results: The type of surgery planned according to urethrography and endoscopy findings
was appropriate in 37/60 (61.6%) patients in group 1 and in 39/47 (83%) patients in group 2
(P < .03). Anastomotic repairs were more frequent among the patients in group 2 (P < .001).
Eighty five out of 107 patients were available for the 24 months follow-up. The success rate
was higher in group 2 (91.4%) than patients in group 1 (70%) (P < .04). The greatest improvement
in symptoms and quality of life occurred three months after the surgery (P < .05).
Postoperative infection was persistent in 20/107 (18.7%) patients.
Conclusion: Urethral strictures with a long history of blind dilatation are separate entity.
They are more difficult to image, require more augmentation and staged procedures and have
a lower success rate.
