Outcomes of HUD Versus CIC in Patients With Urethral Strictures

Abstract

Treatment of urethral stricture is a complex reconstructive urology treatment. Previous surgery in the treatment of urethral stricture increases the risk of urinary incontinence. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the outcome of comparing two preservative or nonsurgical methods, clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) or hydraulic urethral dilatation (HUD). Forty-eight patients diagnosed with symptomatic urethral stricture were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Nelaton-based dilatation and HUD treatment. Patients were assessed using patient-reported outcome measure for urethral stricture surgery (USS-PROM) through direct clinical interview and were followed up for 12 months. The rate of urinary infection, the need for surgical intervention, and the patient’s quality of life were considered as outcomes of the interventions. SPSS software, version 20.0, was used for statistical analysis. Overall, 23 (47.9%) patients underwent HUD of stricture and Nelaton-based dilatation of stricture was done in 25 (52.1%) patients. We found that surgical intervention was required in four patients in the HUD group, but 15 patients in the CIC group required surgical intervention. Also, the need for surgical intervention and urinary tract infection (UTI) was significantly greater in the CIC group compared with the HUD group. With respect to the patient-reported outcomes, the mean Peeling’s voiding picture (Q8) and EQ-VAS score (Q16) in the HUD group ( p = .02) were significantly greater than those in the CIC group ( p = .02). We obtained excellent results by using an HUD catheter. This safe, simple, well-tolerated, home-based procedure reduced the need for hospital admission to operate for repeat.