4.4 Article

Recurrent Benign Urethral Strictures Treated with Covered Retrievable Self-Expandable Metallic Stents: Long-Term Outcomes over an 18-Year Period

Journal

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 11, Pages 1584-1591

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.07.017

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI15C0484]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess the long-term outcomes of covered retrievable self-expandable metallic stent (REMS) placement for recurrent benign urethral stricture and to compare the outcomes associated with 3 types of covered REMSs. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 54 male patients in whom 114 REMSs were placed between November 1998 and December 2016. These included 26 polyurethane-covered REMSs in 13 patients (group A), 47 internally polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered REMSs in 21 patients (group B), and 41 externally PTFE-covered REMSs in 20 patients (group C). The outcomes were analyzed and compared between the groups. Results: Overall clinical success was achieved in 14 of the 54 patients (24%) at 5-year follow-up (group A, 12%; group B, 19%; group C, 40%). The overall complication rate was 60.5%, and the complication rate was significantly higher in group B than in groups A or C (group A vs B, P = .018; group B vs C, P = .002). The median stent indwelling time and maintained patency period were 3.1 months and 108 months, respectively. In multivariate analysis, stent indwelling time was the only significant factor associated with maintained patency. Conclusions: The long-term outcome of covered REMSs has not achieved the desired success rate for the standard treatment of recurrent urethral stricture. However, externally PTFE-covered REMSs showed a better long-term outcome than the other studied types.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available