A Systematic Review of Surgical Techniques Used in the Treatment of Female Urethral Stricture

Context: Female urethral stricture (FUS) is a rare and challenging clinical entity. Several new surgical techniques have been described for the treatment of FUS, although with the limited number of reports, there is no consensus on best management. Objective: We evaluated the evidence for surgical interventions reported for treating FUS. Evidence acquisition: We performed a systematic review of the PubMed and Scopus databases, classifying the results by surgical technique and type of graft in the case of graft augmentation urethroplasty. Evidence synthesis: A total of 221 patients have been reported on with outcome measures after intervention for FUS. The mean age of women was 51.8 yr of age (range: 22-91). All studies were retrospective case series. There was no consistent definition of FUS nor unified diagnostic criteria. Most studies used a combination of diagnostic tests. Where aetiology was defined, idiopathic and iatrogenic stricture were the two most common causes. Ninety-eight patients underwent prior intervention for FUS, mostly urethral dilatation or urethrotomy. Success was defined as the lack of need for further intervention. Urethral dilatation, assessed in 107 patients, had a mean success rate of 47% at a mean follow-up of 43 mo. Fifty-eight patients had vaginal or labial flap augmentation, with a mean success rate of 91% at 32.1 mo of mean follow-up. Vaginal or labial graft augmentation had a mean success rate of 80% in 25 patients at a mean follow-up of 22 mo. Oral mucosal augmentation, performed in 32 patients, had a mean success rate of 94% at 15 mo of mean follow-up. No instances of de novo stress incontinence were reported. Conclusion: The techniques of urethroplasty all have a higher mean success rate (80-94%) than urethral dilatation (<50%), although with shorter mean follow-up. Urethroplasty in experienced hands appears to be a feasible option in women who have failed urethral dilatation, although there is a lack of high-level evidence to recommend one technique over another. (C) 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.