Ahn Sun Tae, Lee Dong Hyun, Kim Jong Wook, Moon Du Geon
Department of Urology, Korea University Guro Hospital, No. 148, Gurodong-ro, Guro-gu, Seoul 08308, Korea.
J Clin Med. 2020 Apr 28;9(5):1274. doi: 10.3390/jcm9051274.
A variety of retrievable and other types of temporarily placed stents are currently being used. However, only a few studies have considered primary endoscopic realignment with temporary urethral stent insertion in the event of traumatic bulbar urethral injury. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and complications between thermo-expandable urethral stents and polymer-coated bulbar urethral stents (BUSs) for the treatment of traumatic bulbar urethral strictures. Between September 2011 and March 2018, 30 patients who had been diagnosed with complete bulbar urethral rupture following blunt trauma underwent temporary urethral stent placement after primary realignment. Thermo-expandable nickel-titanium alloy urethral stents were placed for 15 patients (group M), and retrievable self-expandable polymer-coated BUSs were placed for another 15 patients (group A). All stents were removed within 6 months after placement. The complications and maintained patency rates were compared between the two groups. The mean stent indwelling period was 5.0 ± 2.5 months in group M and 4.9 ± 4.0 months in group A. Both groups maintained high patency rates (Group M 12/15 (80.0%) and group A 13/15 (86.7%)). Five patients who developed urethral stricture underwent direct visual internal urethrotomy (DVIU), and no patients required repeat DVIU or open surgical urethroplasty. Both groups maintained the mean maximal urinary flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months after stent removal. Discomfort (46.7% vs. 6.7%), granulation tissue formation (73.3% vs. 26.7%) and post-void dribbling (80.0% vs. 20.0%) were more frequent in group M than in group A ( = 0.013, = 0.011 and = 0.001, respectively). In conclusion, both stents were effective for managing traumatic complete bulbar urethral rupture after primary realignment. However, the thermo-expandable urethral stents had a higher complication rate while the stent was in situ than the BUSs.
目前正在使用各种可取出的和其他类型的临时放置支架。然而,只有少数研究考虑在球部尿道创伤性损伤时采用临时尿道支架置入进行初次内镜复位。我们旨在比较热膨胀性尿道支架与聚合物涂层球部尿道支架(BUS)治疗创伤性球部尿道狭窄的临床疗效和并发症。2011年9月至2018年3月,30例因钝性创伤导致球部尿道完全断裂的患者在初次复位后接受了临时尿道支架置入。15例患者置入热膨胀性镍钛合金尿道支架(M组),另外15例患者置入可取出的自膨胀聚合物涂层BUS(A组)。所有支架在置入后6个月内取出。比较两组的并发症和通畅率。M组支架平均留置时间为5.0±2.5个月,A组为4.9±4.0个月。两组均保持较高的通畅率(M组12/15(80.0%),A组13/15(86.7%))。5例发生尿道狭窄的患者接受了直视下尿道内切开术(DVIU),无患者需要重复DVIU或开放性手术尿道成形术。两组在支架取出后12个月时均维持平均最大尿流率(Qmax)。M组的不适(46.7%对6.7%)、肉芽组织形成(73.3%对26.7%)和排尿后滴沥(80.0%对20.0%)比A组更常见(分别为P = 0.013、P = 0.011和P = 0.001)。总之,两种支架对初次复位后的创伤性球部尿道完全断裂均有效。然而,热膨胀性尿道支架在位时的并发症发生率高于BUS。