Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 663–666 | Cite as

Is the laser mightier than the sword? A comparative study for the urethrotomy

  • Coen Holzhauer
  • Anita W. T. M. Roelofs
  • Arjen C. Kums
  • Philip C. Weijerman
  • Michael R. van Balken
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The knife is the most common used instrument for endoscopic urethrotomy. Unfortunately, there are high recurrence rates; it is thought that a laser reduces those rates. We compared the two techniques in this retrospective study.

Materials and methods

Between 2010 and 2014, 127 patients were operated on with the knife (KG) and for 65 patients, the laser (LG) was used. We scored the complexity of the stricture using the UREThRAL stricture score (USS) and we scored if a treatment was successful. A failure was determined as recurrence, but also starting clean intermittent catheterization was stated as failure.

Results

There was no difference in USS between the two groups (KG: 5.7 vs LG: 6.0); the laser was more often used in a patient with a recurrence stricture (25.2 vs 43.1%). No difference was found in postoperative increase in flow-rate (9.5 vs 10.5 ml/sec), the number of complications (all Clavien I and one Clavien III in the KG) or the failure rate (58.3 vs 68.8%). When looked separately at patients treated for primary stricture and for a recurrence (96.7 vs 91.2%), no differences were found.

Conclusion

There were no significant differences between knife and laser. With costs taken in consideration, we would advise treatment with the knife. Our results also show a high failure rate, especially in the recurrence group. Therefore, in case of recurrence, an open reconstruction should be considered.

Keywords

Endoscopic Laser Urethra stricture 

References

  1. 1.
    Santucci RA, Joyce GF, Wise M (2007) Male urethral stricture disease. J Urol 177:1667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sachse H (1974) Treatment of urethral stricture: transurethral slit in view using sharp section. Fortschr Med 92:12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bulow H, Bulow U, Frohmuller HG (1979) Transurethral laser urethrotomy in man: preliminary report. J Urol 121:286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiegand LR, Brandes SB (2012) The UREThRAL stricture score: a novel method for describing anterior urethral strictures. Can Urol Assoc J 6:260CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bayne DB, Gaither TW, Awad MA, Murphy GP, Osterberg EC, Breyer BN (2017) Guidelines of guidelines: a review of urethral stricture evaluation, management, and follow-up. Transl Androl Urol 6:288CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dutkiewicz SA, Wroblewski M (2012) Comparison of treatment results between holmium laser endourethrotomy and optical internal urethrotomy for urethral stricture. Int Urol Nephrol 44:717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Atak M, Tokgoz H, Akduman B, Erol B, Donmez I, Hanci V et al (2011) Low-power holmium:YAG laser urethrotomy for urethral stricture disease: comparison of outcomes with the cold-knife technique. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 27:503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rijnstate HospitalArnhemThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations