Preputial/penile skin flap, as a dorsal onlay or tubularized flap: a versatile substitute for complex anterior urethral stricture

OBJECTIVE To present our experience of single-stage reconstruction of urethral stricture with preputial/penile skin flap, as a dorsal onlay flap (DOF) where there is an adequate urethral plate and as a tubularized flap (TF) where there is a compromised urethral plate, in cases of complex anterior urethral strictures. MATERIALS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 144 patients, who underwent single-stage repair of pendular /bulbar urethral strictures with preputial/penile flap as either a DOF or a TF, between January 2001 and December 2008. Patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 consisted of patients who underwent transverse preputial DOF; Group 2 consisted of those who underwent tube urethroplasty; and Group 3 consisted of those patients who were circumcised and for whom the penile skin was used as a DOF (circumpenile flap). Patients were followed up by physical examination, retrograde urethrography, uroflowmetry and post-void residual urine measurement. RESULTS The mean follow-up was 40.1 months (range 36-84 months). The primary success rates at 1 year follow-up were 90, 85 and 93.3% for Groups1, 2 and 3, respectively, and at 3-years follow-up they were 85, 75 and 86.7%, respectively. Half of the recurrences were successfully managed with a single visual internal urethrotomy or dilatation. The secondary success rate was defined as recurrent stricture managed by a single endoscopic procedure and was 5, 10 and 6.8% in Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The overall success rate was 90.85 and 93.3%, respectively. A total of 75% of the patients in the study completed 60 months of follow-up with no additional recurrence. CONCLUSIONS A preputial/penile flap for complex anterior urethral stricture is a good treatment option, with results similar to other techniques, has acceptable donor site morbidity and is effective even in circumcised patients and for those patients with unsuitable oral mucosa. A DOF is less likely to lead to diverticula formation and post-void dribbling. TFs have a higher failure rate than DOFs but, when combined judiciously with secondary endoscopic procedures, can provide good results.