Patient‐reported outcomes after buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty for bulbar urethral strictures: results of a prospective single‐centre cohort study
Authors: D’hulst Pieter , Muilwijk Tim , Vander Eeckt Kathy , Van der Aa Frank , Joniau Steven 
Published: June 2020

Objectives

To describe patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) after buccal mucosa graft (BMG) urethroplasty.

Materials and Methods

We prospectively collected PROMs in patients who underwent BMG urethroplasty for bulbar urethral strictures between October 2009 and February 2017. Preoperatively and at the first, second and third postoperative follow‐up visits, patients completed five PROM questionnaires: the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS); the IPSS Quality of Life questionnaire; the Urogenital Distress Inventory Short‐Form questionnaire (UDI‐6); the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)‐5 questionnaire, combined with IIEF‐Q9 and IIEF‐Q10 for assessing ejaculatory and orgasmic functions; and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life (ICIQ‐LUTS‐QOL) questionnaire. In addition to using these questionnaires, we evaluated maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), post‐void residual urine volume and total voided urine volume at each follow‐up visit. Buccal pain and discomfort were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Comparison of questionnaire scores was performed using a paired Wilcoxon rank‐sum test. Treatment failure was defined as any need for urinary diversion or urethral instrumentation after surgery.

Results

A total of 97 patients met the inclusion criteria. The first postoperative follow‐up visit was at a median of 2.1 months (n = 97/97), and the second and third visits were after a median of 7.8 (n = 82/97) and 17.0 months (n = 70/97), respectively. Significant improvements compared to baseline were observed in IPSS, and IPSS‐QOL, UDI‐6 and ICIQ‐LUTS‐QOL scores at the first follow‐up, and remained improved during the follow‐up period (P ≤ 0.001). Patients with mild to no baseline erectile dysfunction experienced a significant decline in erectile function at the first follow‐up (median [interquartile range {IQR}] preoperative IIEF‐5 score 23.0 [21.0–25.0] vs median [IQR] IIEF‐5 score at first follow‐up 19.5 [16.0–23.8]; P ≤ 0.001). This decline fully recovered during further follow‐up (median [IQR] IIEF‐5 score at third follow‐up 24.0 [20.5–25.0]; P = 0.86). No significant changes in median orgasmic and ejaculatory function were noted. The first postoperative median (IQR) VAS score was 3.0 (2.0–4.45), and a significant improvement in local pain and discomfort was observed during the follow‐up (median [IQR] VAS at third follow‐up: 0.0 [0.0–1.0]; P ≤ 0.001). Nine patients (9/97; 9.3%) had treatment failure. Stratifying recurrence based on a difference of <10 mL/s vs ≥10 mL/s between preoperative and postoperative Qmax could not demonstrate a significant difference (P = 0.06).

Conclusion

Significant improvements in voiding symptoms and quality of life after surgery were reported. Patients with good baseline erections recovered erectile function during follow‐up, although a significant decrease in erectile function was observed at the first follow‐up. This study highlights the importance of PROMs in urethral reconstructive surgery, emphasizing that success should not be defined only by stricture‐free survival.