Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Division of Urology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Eur Urol. 2021 Jul;80(1):57-68. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.03.026. Epub 2021 Apr 17.
Four techniques for graft placement in one-stage bulbar urethroplasty have been reported: dorsal onlay (DO), ventral onlay (VO), dorsolateral onlay (DLO), and dorsal inlay (DI). There is currently no systematic review in the literature comparing these techniques.
To assess if stricture recurrence and secondary outcomes vary between the four techniques and to assess if one technique is superior to any other.
The EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane HTA, DARE, HEED) databases and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for publications in English from 1996 onwards. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised comparative studies (NRCSs), observational studies (cohort, case-control/comparative, single-arm), and case series with ≥20 adult male participants were included.
A total of 41 studies were included involving 3683 patients from one RCT, four NRCSs, and 36 case series. Owing to the overall low quality of the evidence, a narrative synthesis was performed.
No single technique appears to be superior to another for bulbar free graft urethroplasty. Both DO and VO are suitable for bulbar augmentation urethroplasty, with a ≤20% recurrence rate over medium-term follow-up. No recommendations can be made regarding DI or DLO techniques owing to the paucity of evidence. Secondary outcomes including sexual function, and complications are infrequently reported. Recurrence rates deteriorate in the long term for both DO and VO procedures.
We reviewed the evidence for four different skin-graft techniques used to repair narrowing of a section of the urethra (bulbar urethra, under the scrotum and perineum) in men. Two of the techniques seem to give consistent results, with recurrence rates lower than 20%. Recurrence rates increase over time, so patients should continue to monitor their symptoms. There is poorer reporting of other outcomes such as sexual function, urinary symptoms, and complications, and it is possible that these occur more frequently than the current data suggest.
有报道称,在一期球部尿道成形术中,有 4 种移植物放置技术:背侧镶嵌(DO)、腹侧镶嵌(VO)、背外侧镶嵌(DLO)和背侧镶嵌(DI)。目前,文献中尚无系统评价比较这些技术。
评估这 4 种技术的狭窄复发和次要结果是否存在差异,以及评估是否有一种技术优于其他技术。
检索了 EMBASE、MEDLINE 和 Cochrane 系统评价-Cochrane 中央对照试验注册库(CENTRAL;Cochrane HTA、DARE、HEED)数据库以及 ClinicalTrials.gov 数据库,检索了 1996 年以来发表的英文文献。纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)、非随机对照研究(NRCS)、观察性研究(队列、病例对照/比较、单臂)和≥20 例成年男性参与者的病例系列研究。
共纳入 41 项研究,涉及 1 项 RCT、4 项 NRCS 和 36 项病例系列研究的 3683 例患者。由于证据整体质量较低,因此进行了叙述性综合。
没有一种技术在球部游离移植物尿道成形术中优于另一种技术。DO 和 VO 两种技术均适用于球部增强尿道成形术,在中期随访中,复发率均≤20%。由于证据不足,无法对 DI 或 DLO 技术提出建议。很少有研究报告性功能和并发症等次要结果。DO 和 VO 两种手术的复发率在长期随访中都会恶化。
我们回顾了四种不同的皮肤移植物技术用于修复男性尿道(球部尿道,阴囊和会阴下)狭窄的证据。其中两种技术的效果似乎一致,复发率低于 20%。随着时间的推移,复发率会增加,因此患者应继续监测自己的症状。其他结果(如性功能、尿症状和并发症)的报告较差,这些问题可能比当前数据显示的更为常见。