TY - JOUR
T1 - Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings of Traumatic Bulbar Urethral Stricture Help Estimate Repair Complexity
AU - Horiguchi, Akio
AU - Edo, Hiromi
AU - Soga, Shigeyoshi
AU - Azuma, Ryuichi
AU - Shinchi, Masayuki
AU - Ojima, Kenichiro
AU - Asano, Tomohiko
AU - Ito, Keiichi
AU - Shinmoto, Hiroshi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2020/1
Y1 - 2020/1
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of traumatic bulbar stricture and to evaluate their ability to estimate repair complexity. METHODS: Eighty-nine men with traumatic bulbar stricture who underwent urethrography and MRI at least 3 months postinjury and subsequent excision and primary anastomosis were retrospectively analyzed. The associations of MRI findings, including continuity of the tunica albuginea of the corpus spongiosum, periurethral fistula, spongiofibrosis length (SFL), and distal and proximal bulbar urethral length from the stricture, with urethrography and operative parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean SFL was significantly longer than mean stricture length on urethrography (14.9 vs 7.9 mm, P <.0001). Periurethral fistula was found in 18 (20.2%) patients on MRI but not in 10 (55.6%) of them on urethrography. The corpus spongiosum was disrupted in 40 patients (55.1%) on MRI. On multivariate linear regression, SFL (standard coefficient, 0.25; t value, 2.31; P =. 02) predicted operation time, while SFL (standard coefficient, 0.22; t value, 2.04; P =. 04) and proximal bulbar urethral length (standard coefficient, −0.25; t value, −2.11; P =. 04) independently predicted blood loss. Corporal splitting to reduce anastomotic tension and/or increase visualization during repair was needed in 33 patients (37.1%). Stricture length on urethrography (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.42; P =. 006) and corpus spongiosum disruption (odds ratio, 5.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-19.34, P =. 005) were independent predictors for the need of corporal splitting. CONCLUSION: In contrast to urethrography findings, MRI findings help predict traumatic bulbar stricture repair complexity.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of traumatic bulbar stricture and to evaluate their ability to estimate repair complexity. METHODS: Eighty-nine men with traumatic bulbar stricture who underwent urethrography and MRI at least 3 months postinjury and subsequent excision and primary anastomosis were retrospectively analyzed. The associations of MRI findings, including continuity of the tunica albuginea of the corpus spongiosum, periurethral fistula, spongiofibrosis length (SFL), and distal and proximal bulbar urethral length from the stricture, with urethrography and operative parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean SFL was significantly longer than mean stricture length on urethrography (14.9 vs 7.9 mm, P <.0001). Periurethral fistula was found in 18 (20.2%) patients on MRI but not in 10 (55.6%) of them on urethrography. The corpus spongiosum was disrupted in 40 patients (55.1%) on MRI. On multivariate linear regression, SFL (standard coefficient, 0.25; t value, 2.31; P =. 02) predicted operation time, while SFL (standard coefficient, 0.22; t value, 2.04; P =. 04) and proximal bulbar urethral length (standard coefficient, −0.25; t value, −2.11; P =. 04) independently predicted blood loss. Corporal splitting to reduce anastomotic tension and/or increase visualization during repair was needed in 33 patients (37.1%). Stricture length on urethrography (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.42; P =. 006) and corpus spongiosum disruption (odds ratio, 5.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-19.34, P =. 005) were independent predictors for the need of corporal splitting. CONCLUSION: In contrast to urethrography findings, MRI findings help predict traumatic bulbar stricture repair complexity.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075342998&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075342998&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2019.09.036
DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2019.09.036
M3 - Article
C2 - 31626854
AN - SCOPUS:85075342998
SN - 0090-4295
VL - 135
SP - 146
EP - 153
JO - Urology
JF - Urology
ER -