Abstract: Urethral stricture disease is relatively common and is associated with a significant financial cost
and potentially debilitating outcomes. Understanding urethral stricture epidemiology is important to identify
risk factors associated with the etiology or progression of the disease. This understanding may lead to better
treatments and preventative measures that could ameliorate disease severity, produce better health outcomes,
and reduce expenditures. We performed a comprehensive review of urethral stricture disease based on
available published case series, identified gaps in knowledge of this disease, and recommend future directions
for research.
Submitted Mar 19, 2014. Accepted for publication Apr 01, 2014.
doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2014.04.07
View this article at: http://www.amepc.org/tau/article/view/3755/4681
Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. www.amepc.org/tau Transl Androl Urol 2014;3(2):209-213
210 Alwaal et al. Epidemiology of urethral strictures
outpatient procedures, the National Survey of Ambulatory reconstruction, $16,444, compared with receiving repeat
Surgery data for the annualized rate of ambulatory surgery urethrotomies, $17,747 (3).
center visits pooled from 1994 to 1996 was found to be Recently, Palminteri et al. (4) evaluated urethral
60/100,000. In patients with urethral stricture disease older stricture characteristics in Italy using data from 1,439 male
than 60 years, 6.5% underwent retrograde urethrography patients that were referred to specialized genitourinary
(RUG) studies. Urethral dilation remains a very common reconstructive centers. The mean age of urethral stricture
outpatient procedure among Medicare beneficiaries, presentation was 45.1 years (range, 2-84 years). The mean
and even though it was reduced by half in 2001 at length of stricture was 4.2 cm with the vast majority of
19,658/100,000 compared to 1992, it was still double strictures occurring in the anterior urethra (92.2%), in
the number of ureteroscopies performed in the same particular the bulbar urethra (46.9%). Of note, patients
population. Patients with urethral stricture are considered with bulbar strictures tended to be younger than patients
a vulnerable population as they experienced high rates of with strictures in all the other parts of the urethra. The
UTIs (41%) and incontinence (11%) as sequelae of the majority of patients, 73.6%, received some form of surgical
disease (1,2). However, multiple data sets they examined intervention for their stricture disease prior to presentation
suggest that the rate of urethral stricture hospitalization to the referral center. Most of these patients (32.1%) had
and treatments decreased with time potentially due to already undergone more than one procedure, and 23.2%
a hypothetically decreased incidence/prevalence of the had undergone urethrotomy alone. Of these patients, 97.4%
disease and/or increased success of strictures treatment. required urethroplasty for management of their stricture
Some of the data sets indicate that Black Americans are disease, and only 2.6% underwent urethrotomy.
at a higher risk of urethral stricture disease than White Stein et al. (5) looked retrospectively at 2,589 patients
Americans, with sample numbers too low to draw accurate who underwent urethroplasty procedures from 2000 to
conclusions for Asian, Hispanic, and Native American 2011 in the USA, Italy, and India. Similar to the results
patients (1). of the previous study, men presented at a mean age of
In addition, Santucci et al. demonstrated the high 41.4 years with similar etiologies of their stricture disease
health care cost for treatment of urethral stricture disease. (see Table 1). Fenton et al. (6) looked retrospectively at
The total annual expenditure for stricture disease was 175 patients with anterior urethral stricture in Texas and
191 million dollars in 2000 with 69% of costs paid for Honduras and identified the mean stricture length at
ambulatory surgery visits. Individual healthcare expenditure 4.1 cm, with the bulbar urethra being the most common
for an insured male with urethral stricture disease was site constituting 52% of the cases. Infection-induced
almost 3-fold higher compared to males without stricture strictures, including lichen sclerosis (LS), were reported as
disease ($10,472 vs. $3,713) (1). Other reports estimated inflammatory strictures and were the third leading cause of
a decreased lifetime treatment cost for urethral stricture stricture disease at 26.6% following idiopathic (31.9%) and
disease in the U.S. if a patient received immediate urethral iatrogenic causes (31.9%).
Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. www.amepc.org/tau Transl Androl Urol 2014;3(2):209-213
Translational Andrology and Urology, Vol 3, No 2 June 2014 211
Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. www.amepc.org/tau Transl Androl Urol 2014;3(2):209-213
212 Alwaal et al. Epidemiology of urethral strictures
therapy (EBRT) is known to be to be low with a reported would lead to better control of its subsequent development
rate of 2% (26). After brachytherapy the risk is higher and recurrence of strictures.
and has been reported in some series as high as 12%
(27,28). High-dose brachytherapy is associated with
Acknowledgements
more risk of post-treatment urethral stricture than both
low-dose brachytherapy and EBRT, which implies a None.
biologic equivalent dose (BED) related effect. Higher
fractionation schedule of brachytherapy was associated with
Footnote
an increased risk of stricture while PSA level of <10 was
associated a reduced risk of stricture (29). Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest
to declare.
Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. www.amepc.org/tau Transl Androl Urol 2014;3(2):209-213
Translational Andrology and Urology, Vol 3, No 2 June 2014 213
12. Pokorny M, Pontes JE, Pierce JM Jr. Urological injuries and stricture after radical prostatectomy. J Urol
associated with pelvic trauma. J Urol 1979;121:455-7. 2000;163:858-64.
13. Coffield KS, Weems WL. Experience with management of 24. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness
posterior urethral injury associated with pelvic fracture. J of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA
Urol 1977;117:722-4. 2009;302:1557-64.
14. Bjurlin MA, Fantus RJ, Mellett MM, et al. Genitourinary 25. Wang R, Wood DP Jr, Hollenbeck BK, et al. Risk factors
injuries in pelvic fracture morbidity and mortality using the and quality of life for post-prostatectomy vesicourethral
National Trauma Data Bank. J Trauma 2009;67:1033-9. anastomotic stenoses. Urology 2012;79:449-57.
15. Leddy L, Voelzke B, Wessells H. Primary realignment 26. Zelefsky MJ, Wallner KE, Ling CC, et al. Comparison of
of pelvic fracture urethral injuries. Urol Clin North Am the 5-year outcome and morbidity of three-dimensional
2013;40:393-401. conformal radiotherapy versus transperineal permanent
16. Ranjan P, Ansari MS, Singh M, et al. Post-traumatic iodine-125 implantation for early-stage prostatic cancer. J
urethral strictures in children: what have we learned over Clin Oncol 1999;17:517-22.
the years? J Pediatr Urol 2012;8:234-9. 27. Sarosdy MF. Urinary and rectal complications of
17. Powell JJ, Wojnarowska F. Lichen sclerosus. Lancet contemporary permanent transperineal brachytherapy
1999;353:1777-83. for prostate carcinoma with or without external beam
18. Pugliese JM, Morey AF, Peterson AC. Lichen sclerosus: radiation therapy. Cancer 2004;101:754-60.
review of the literature and current recommendations for 28. Elliott SP, Meng MV, Elkin EP, et al. Incidence of urethral
management. J Urol 2007;178:2268-76. stricture after primary treatment for prostate cancer: data
19. Meffert JJ, Davis BM, Grimwood RE. Lichen sclerosus. J From CaPSURE. J Urol 2007;178:529-34; discussion 534.
Am Acad Dermatol 1995;32:393-416; quiz 417-8. 29. Hindson BR, Millar JL, Matheson B. Urethral strictures
20. Depasquale I, Park AJ, Bracka A. The treatment of following high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer:
balanitis xerotica obliterans. BJU Int 2000;86:459-65. analysis of risk factors. Brachytherapy 2013;12:50-5.
21. Andrich DE, Mundy AR. What is the best technique for 30. Ceylan K, Burhan K, Yilmaz Y, et al. Severe complications
urethroplasty? Eur Urol 2008;54:1031-41. of circumcision: an analysis of 48 cases. J Pediatr Urol
22. Park R, Martin S, Goldberg JD, et al. Anastomotic 2007;3:32-5.
strictures following radical prostatectomy: insights 31. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on
into incidence, effectiveness of intervention, effect on Circumcision. Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics
continence, and factors predisposing to occurrence. 2012;130:585-6.
Urology 2001;57:742-6. 32. Mahmoudi H. Evaluation of meatal stenosis following
23. Kao TC, Cruess DF, Garner D, et al. Multicenter patient neonatal circumcision. Urol J 2005;2:86-8.
self-reporting questionnaire on impotence, incontinence
Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. www.amepc.org/tau Transl Androl Urol 2014;3(2):209-213