Characterization of patients undergoing urethroplasty between 2013 and 2021 in an institution in eastern Colombia

Characterization of patients undergoing urethroplasty between 2013 and 2021 in an institution in eastern Colombia

Ana Ma. Ortiz-Zableh 1 , Guillermo Sarmiento 1 , Verónica Tobar-Roa 1 , Paul A. Camacho 2 , Eliana Calderón-Rivera 3 , Camila Pérez-Medina 3 , Hernán Díaz-Rueda 1

1 Servicio de Urología, Centro Urológico FOSCAL, Colombia; 2 Centro de Investigaciones FOSCAL-FOSCAL Internacional, Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga. Bucaramanga, Santander, Colombia; 3 Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Pamplona, Pamplona, Norte de Santander, Colombia

*Correspondence: Ana Ma. Ortiz-Zableh. Email: aortiz779@unab.edu.co

Abstract

Objective: Urethral stricture is any narrowing of the urethra that may or may not cause alterations in urine flow. Among the management options, urethral reconstruction through urethroplasty has been classified as the gold standard. We sought to demonstrate the functional results in the voiding pattern of patients with a diagnosis of urethral stricture undergoing urethral reconstruction.

Method: Ambispective cohort of patients undergoing urethral reconstruction through urethroplasty operated in clinica Foscal between 2013 and 2021. Sociodemographic variables were collected. We described postoperative complications, we evaluated the voiding pattern, the degree of associated erectile dysfunction, the quality of life and the degree of postoperative satisfaction, and we analyzed the factors associated with failure of the procedure.

Results: One hundred and twenty urethroplasties in 110 patients, 53 with excision and primary anastomosis (EPA) and 67 with graft. The average age was 56 years, 89% had undergone previous treatments, mainly urethral dilations (46.6%) and internal urethrotomy (35.83%). The main location was bulbar, and the main etiology was traumatic. Re-stenosis occurred in 24.5% of EPA and in 43.28% of grafts. Eighty six percent reported satisfaction with the procedure. Complications were higher in the graft group (31.34 vs. 24.53%).

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the functional results of urethral reconstruction with both techniques, with greater restenosis in the graft group. Most patients are satisfied with the results.

Keywords: Urethra; Urethral stricture; Reconstructive surgical procedures; Surgical anastomosis; Grafts

Contents

English version not available. Please check the Spanish version.

⇄ Versión en Español
DOI not available
Add to Mendeley

Text only available in Spanish.

    PERMANYER

    Mallorca, 310
    08037 Barcelona (España)

    Arquímedes, 190 – Colonia Polanco
    Delegación Miguel Hidalgo
    11560 Ciudad de México (México)

    RECURRING LINKS
    CLOCKSS is a dak archive that ensures the long-term survival of web-based scholary publications, governed by and for its stakeholders.

    This journal adheres to the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics

    English versión
    DOI not available

    Editorial times

    The editorial process consists of 6 stages:

    1. Reception of the manuscript (indeterminate, depending on whether the author meets the requirements): its objective is to verify that the manuscript complies with the specifications of these instructions for authors and that the submitted documentation is complete.

    2. Initial editorial review (maximum 5 business days): its objective is to corroborate the relevance, timeliness, originality, and scientific contribution of the manuscript, as well as the methodological and statistical soundness of the study. At this time, it will be submitted to an electronic plagiarism detection system. Derived from this, a rejected opinion may be obtained, or it will be sent for review by peer researchers.

    3. Review by peer researchers (maximum 30 business days): the opinion of at least two experts in the area in question will be obtained, who will evaluate the technical and methodological aspects of the investigation.

    4. Editorial review (maximum 7 business days): its objective is to make a decision based on the opinion of peer reviewers. The opinion can be rejected, major changes, minor changes or accepted. In the case of major or minor changes, it will be submitted again for evaluation by the initial peer reviewers.

    5. Final edition (6 weeks): its objective is the technical and linguistic edition (and translation), layout of galleys, DOI assignment, and correction by the author.

    6. Advanced publication: All manuscripts will be published ahead of print on the journal’s website as soon as they complete the editing process, until they are incorporated into a final issue of the journal.