World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 11, pp 2523–2531 | Cite as

Socioeconomic and patient-related factors for the management of male urethral stricture disease

  • Ryan A. DornbierEmail author
  • Eric J. Kirshenbaum
  • Marc H. Nelson
  • Robert H. Blackwell
  • Gopal N. Gupta
  • Ahmer V. Farooq
  • Christopher M. Gonzalez
Original Article



We sought to determine the socioeconomic and patient factors that influence the utilization of urethroplasty and location of management in the treatment of male urethral stricture disease.


A retrospective review using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases for California and Florida was performed. Adult men with a diagnosis of urethral stricture who underwent treatment with urethroplasty or endoscopic dilation/urethrotomy between 2007 and 2011 in California and 2009 and 2014 in Florida were identified by ICD-9 or CPT codes. Patients were categorized based on whether they had a urethroplasty or serial dilations/urethrotomies. Patients were assessed for age, insurance provider, median household income by zip code, Charlson Comorbidity Index, race, prior stricture management, and location of the index procedure. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to assess factors influencing treatment modality (urethroplasty vs endoscopic management) and location (teaching hospital vs non-teaching hospital).


Twenty seven thousand, five hundred and sixty-eight patients were identified that underwent treatment for USD. 25,864 (93.8%) treated via endoscopic approaches and 1704 (6.2%) treated with urethroplasty. Factors favoring utilization of urethroplasty include younger age, lower Charlson Comorbidity score, higher zip code median income quartile, private insurance, prior endoscopic treatment, and management at a teaching hospital.


Socioeconomic predictors of urethroplasty utilization include higher income status and private insurance. Patient-specific factors influencing urethroplasty were younger age and fewer medical comorbidities. A primary driver of urethroplasty utilization was treatment at a teaching hospital. Older and Hispanic patients were less likely to seek care at these facilities.


Urethral stricture disease Urethroplasty Socioeconomics Specialized centers 


Author contributions

RA Dornbier: project development, data collection and analysis, manuscript writing. EJ Kirshenbaum: project development, data collection and analysis, manuscript editing. MH Nelson: data collection and analysis. RH Blackwell: project development, manuscript editing. GN Gupta: data analysis, manuscript editing. AV Farooq: project development, data analysis, manuscript editing. CM Gonzalez: data analysis, manuscript editing


This study was funded with institutional and departmental funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

CM Gonzalez: fellowship support from Boston Scientific and Coloplast. AV Farooq: fellowship support from Boston Scientific and Coloplast. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Statement of human rights

For this type of study formal consent is not required. This study was institutional review board exempt given the low risk of patient identification using a large, de-identified database. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee nd with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not obtained for this study, given its retrospective nature and use of a large, de-identified database. The risk of patient identification was low.


  1. 1.
    Santucci RA, Joyce GF, Wise M (2007) Male urethral stricture disease. J Urol 177:1667–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steenkamp JW, Heyns CF, de Kock ML (1997) Internal urethrotomy versus dilation as treatment for male urethral strictures: a prospective, randomized comparison. J Urol 157:98–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenwell TJ, Castle C, Andrich DE et al (2004) Repeat urethrotomy and dilation for the treatment of urethral stricture are neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. J Urol 172:275–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meeks JJ, Erickson BA, Granieri MA, Gonzalez CM (2009) Defining stricture recurrence after urethroplasty: a systematic review. J Urol 181:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wessells H, Angermeier KW, Elliott S et al (2017) Male urethral stricture: American Urological Association guideline. J Urol 197:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Granieri MA, Peterson AC (2014) The management of bulbar urethral stricture disease before referral for definitive repair: have practice patterns changed? Urology 84:946–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weiner AB, Matulewicz RS, Tosoian JJ et al (2018) The effect of socioeconomic status, race, and insurance type on newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer in the United States (2004–2013). Urol Oncol 36:91.e1–91.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mahal BA, Chen Y-W, Muralidhar V et al (2016) National sociodemographic disparities in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer: do academic cancer centers perform better than community cancer centers? Cancer 122:3371–3377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacobs BL, Montgomery JS, Zhang Y et al (2012) Disparities in bladder cancer. Urol Oncol 30:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Consolo MJ, Syed KK, Robison C et al (2016) Barriers to accessing urethroplasty. Rev Urol 18:188–193PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Basson J, Heyns CF, Van der Merwe J, Van der Merwe A (2012) Treatment of male urethral strictures—possible reasons for the use of repeated dilatation or internal urethrotomy rather than urethroplasty. S Afr J Surg. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Barrett M, Steiner C, Andrews R et al Methodological issues when studying readmissions and revisits using hospital administrative data. Agency for healthcare research and quality: healthcare cost and utilization project 2011.
  14. 14.
    Buckley JC, Patel N, Wang S, Liss M (2016) National trends in the management of urethral stricture disease: a 14-year survey of the nationwide inpatient sample. Urol Pract 3:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blaschko SD, Harris CR, Zaid UB et al (2015) Trends, utilization, and immediate perioperative complications of urethroplasty in the United States: data from the national inpatient sample 2000–2010. Urology 85:1190–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bullock TL, Brandes SB (2007) Adult anterior urethral strictures: a national practice patterns survey of board certified urologists in the United States. J Urol 177:685–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu JS, Hofer MD, Oberlin DT et al (2015) Practice Patterns in the treatment of urethral stricture among American urologists: a paradigm change? Urology 86:830–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parikh-Patel A, Morris CR, Kizer KW (2017) Disparities in quality of cancer care: the role of health insurance and population demographics. Medicine 96:e9125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ziehr DR, Mahal BA, Aizer AA et al (2015) Income inequality and treatment of African American men with high-risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 33:18.e7–18.e13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patel PR, Lee J, Rodriguez AM et al (2014) Disparities in use of laparoscopic hysterectomies: a nationwide analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schumacher JR, Taylor LJ, Tucholka JL et al (2017) Socioeconomic factors associated with post-mastectomy immediate reconstruction in a contemporary cohort of breast cancer survivors. Ann Surg Oncol 24:3017–3023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu JH, Zingmond DS, McGory ML et al (2006) Disparities in the utilization of high-volume hospitals for complex surgery. JAMA 296:1973–1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Velasco-Mondragon E, Jimenez A, Palladino-Davis AG et al (2016) Hispanic health in the USA: a scoping review of the literature. Public Health Rev 37:31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vega WA, Rodriguez MA, Gruskin E (2009) Health disparities in the Latino population. Epidemiol Rev 31:99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DuBard CA, Gizlice Z (2008) Language spoken and differences in health status, access to care, and receipt of preventive services among US Hispanics. Am J Public Health 98:2021–2028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anger JT, Buckley JC, Santucci RA et al (2011) Trends in stricture management among male medicare beneficiaries: underuse of urethroplasty? Urology 77:481–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levy M, Gor RA, Vanni AJ et al (2017) The impact of age on urethroplasty success. Urology 107:232–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Viers BR, Pagliara TJ, Rew CA et al (2018) Urethral reconstruction in aging male patients. Urology 113:209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chapman D, Kinnaird A, Rourke K (2017) Independent predictors of stricture recurrence following urethroplasty for isolated bulbar urethral strictures. J Urol 198:1107–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan A. Dornbier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eric J. Kirshenbaum
    • 1
  • Marc H. Nelson
    • 1
  • Robert H. Blackwell
    • 2
  • Gopal N. Gupta
    • 1
  • Ahmer V. Farooq
    • 1
  • Christopher M. Gonzalez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyLoyola University Medical CenterMaywoodUSA
  2. 2.Division of UrologySouthern Illinois University School of MedicineSpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations