Perineal midline vertical incision verses inverted-U incision in the urethroplasty: which is better?
To compare postoperative outcomes between the perineal inverted-U and the vertical midline incision approaches of the urethroplasty and clarify them via gross anatomy.
Patients and methods
A total of 461 male patients, from Jan. 2006 to Jun. 2014, who underwent the urethroplasty via perineal midline vertical or inverted-U incision approach were recruited retrospectively. By match pairing for etiology and stricture length, 410 patients from two groups (205 for each group) were selected. Anatomy experiments were also performed. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: the Chi-square, Student’s t and binary logistic regression analyses were performed to compare the operative and postoperative data on the two groups.
With regard to patients with bulbar urethral stricture, the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) in perineal inverted-U group was 18.6% while 1.9% in the midline vertical group (p < 0.001). As for patients with posterior urethral stricture, the rate of SSI in the perineal inverted-U group was 16.4% while 3.1% in the midline vertical group (p = 0.001). Mean hospital stay between both groups were 15.8 ± 9.0 vs. 12.7 ± 3.8 days (p < 0.001). Anatomy experiments showed the number of damaged vessels and nerves involved in the inverted-U incision were approximately 1.6 to 2.0 folds more than the vertical midline, but the visual operation fields are similar between two approaches.
The perineal midline vertical incision is a safer approach with fewer SSI and shorter hospital stay than the perineal inverted-U incision for bulbar and posterior urethroplasty.
KeywordsUrethroplasty Incision approach Surgical site infection Midline Inverted-U
Our special thanks are due to Prof. Guanjian Liu and Prof. Liang DU from Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, for his help for design of methods. This study was supported by Grant No. 31170907, No. 31370951, No. 81470927 and No. 81300579 from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 2014SCU04B21 from Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of Sichuan University, Grant No. JH2014053 from Academic Leader Training Fund of Sichuan Province and Grant No. JH2015017 from Application-oriented Foundation of Committee Organization Department of Sichuan Provincial Party.
KW had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: YL, DL, KW. Acquisition of data: YL, DL, TY, GW, HZ. Analysis and interpretation of data: YL, DL, TY. Drafting of the manuscript: YL, DL, TY. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: BL, YT, TJ. Statistical analysis: YL, DL. Obtaining funding: DL, KW, HL. Administrative, technical, or material support: KW, HL. Supervision: KW, HL. Other: None.
This study was supported by Grant No. 31170907, No. 31370951, No. 81470927 and No. 81300579 from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 2014SCU04B21 from Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of Sichuan University, Grant No. JH2014053 from Academic Leader Training Fund of Sichuan Province and Grant No. JH2015017 from Application-oriented Foundation of Committee Organization Department of Sichuan Provincial Party.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
- 6.Kidd F (1928) Discussion on the treatment of urethral stricture and fistulae by excision. Proc R Soc Med 21(9):1635–1654Google Scholar
- 12.Teichman JM, Reddy PK, Hulbert JC (1995) Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection, laparoscopically assisted seminal vesicle mobilization, and total perineal prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 45(5):823–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80090-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Lance RS, Freidrichs PA, Kane C, Powell CR, Pulos E, Moul JW, McLeod DG, Cornum RL, Brantley Thrasher J (2001) A comparison of radical retropubic with perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer within the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group. BJU Int 87(1):61–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, Bergh R, Bolla M, Casteren N (2015) EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Uroweb. http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/09-Prostate-Cancer_LR.pdf. Accessed 19 Apr 2016
- 16.Lee KW, Kim SH, Han SS, Kim YK, Cho SY, You T, Park SJ (2011) Use of an upper midline incision for living donor partial hepatectomy: a series of 143 consecutive cases (Retracted Article, see vol 18, pg 1129, 2012). Liver Transplant 17(8):969–975. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.22337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 27(2):97–132 (quiz 133–134; discussion 196) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Hussain A, Pansota MS, Rasool M, Tabassum SA, Ahmad I, Saleem MS (2013) Outcome of end-to-end urethroplasty in post-traumatic stricture of posterior urethra. J Coll Phys Surg Pak JCPSP 23(4):272–275. https://doi.org/04.2013/jcpsp.272275Google Scholar
- 32.Gulia R (2014) Atlas of urethroplasty. Jaypee Brothers, Medical Publishers Pvt. Limited, New DelhiGoogle Scholar