The comparison of two different surgical approachesand urethral dilation for urethral stricture following TURP

Dong Ying; Lei Pu; Bo Xiaobin

doi:10.19558/j.cnki.10-1020/r.2017.04.013

Abstract：Objective:To assess the efficacy and safety of two ways (Otis knife cutting and hard urethral probe dilation,S-shaped urethral probe and hard urethral probe dilation) to treat urethral stricture after TURP.Methods:Forty-one cases of urethral stricture after TURP were divided into two groups according to the will of patients:one group of 22 patients given transurethral Otis knife cutting and hard urethral dilation probe,and one group of 19 patients undergoing S-shaped urethral probe and hard urethral probe dilation.All patients were subjected to implantation of No.F20 Foley catheter for 1 month,and regular urethral dilation was performed for 3 months after urethral catheter removal.All patients were followed up for 6 months.The preoperative,operative and postoperative clinical parameters were compared between two groups,including quality of life score (QOL),maximum flow rate (Qmax),residual urine volume (RUV),operative time,blood loss,hospital stay,the curative rate,complications and postoperative incontinence.Results:After two groups of patients were followed up for 6 months,QOL,Qmax,and RUV were significantly improved,and no statistically significant difference was found between two groups (P>0.05).Blood loss,the curative rate,and urinary incontinence between tow groups showed no significant difference (P>0.05).The operation time and hospital time were signififcantly longer in the patients with the Otis knife incision group than in those with S-shaped urethral probe dilatation group (P<0.05).Conclusions:Both ways can be used to treat urethral stricture after TURP.S-shaped urethral probe and hard urethral probe dilation had shorter operative time and hospital stay,no risk of urinary incontinence,and can be easily accepted by patients.