Long-segment urethral stricture or panurethral stricture disease, involving the different anatomic segments of anterior urethra, is a relatively less common lesion of the anterior urethra compared to bulbar stricture. However, it is a particularly difficult surgical challenge for the reconstructive urologist. The etiology varies according to age and geographic location, lichen sclerosus being the most prevalent in some regions of the globe. Other common and significant causes are previous endoscopic urethral manipulations (urethral catheterization, cystourethroscopy, and transurethral resection), previous urethral surgery, trauma, inflammation, and idiopathic. The iatrogenic causes are the most predominant in the Western or industrialized countries, and lichen sclerosus is the most common in India. Several surgical procedures and their modifications, including those performed in one or more stages and with the use of adjunct tissue transfer maneuvers, have been developed and used worldwide, with varying long-term success. A one-stage, minimally invasive technique approached through a single perineal incision has gained widespread popularity for its effectiveness and reproducibility. Nonetheless, for a successful result, the reconstructive urologist should be experienced and familiar with the different treatment modalities currently available and select the best procedure for the individual patient.

Objective: Sclerosing lipogranuloma of the penis is a relatively rare disorder associated with injection of illicit foreign materials for penile augmentation. We aim to report the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of patients with this condition, and to review the most relevant literature currently available. Background: Injection of mineral oil into the subcutaneous tissues of the penis for augmentation has been practiced since ancient times. The potential for complications has long been known, and most doctors have abandoned the procedure. However, it is still practiced in some parts of the world. The complications may be devastating including death from embolism or sepsis. The affected area may not be restricted to the injection site, potentially involving the scrotal and suprapubic areas. Surgery with complete removal of the involved tissue followed by covering the denuded area with a graft or skin flap is the best therapeutic option. Methods: The literature search involved keywords such as penis, augmentation, enlargement, sclerosing, lipogranuloma, penile injection, paraffinoma, and was obtained from computerized search of databases such as PubMed, Google Search and Scopus. Personal experience of the lead author (BS) is also described. We tried arbitrarily to limit our search to articles including ≥5 patients pertaining to the subject of our review and, therefore, excluded single case reports. However, a single systematic search of PubMed and Scopus was also found and included. Conclusions: The treatment of choice is radical excision of all the lesions followed by skin grafting. Bearing in mind that prospective, randomized, controlled studies are considered difficult to carry out, further work will continue apparently to be based on case series by individual surgeons. It is critical to advise patients to separate the myths from the facts and use preventive measures through awareness and education to best minimize the downsides of this problem.

The treatment of urethral stenosis after a combination of prostatectomy and radiation therapy for prostate cancer is understudied. We evaluate the clinical and patient-related outcomes after dorsal onlay buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty (D-BMGU) in men who underwent prostatectomy and radiation therapy. A multi-institutional, retrospective review of men with vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis or bulbomembranous urethral stricture disease after radical prostatectomy and radiation therapy from 8 institutions between 2013 to 2021 was performed. The primary outcomes were stenosis recurrence and development of de novo stress urinary incontinence. Secondary outcomes were surgical complications, changes in voiding, and patient-reported satisfaction. Forty-five men were treated with D-BMGU for stenosis following prostatectomy and radiation. There was a total of 7 recurrences. Median follow-up in patients without recurrence was 21 months (IQR 12-24). There were no incidents of de novo incontinence, 28 patients were incontinent pre- and postoperatively, and of the 6 patients managed with suprapubic catheter preoperatively, 4 were continent after repair. Following repair, men had significant improvement in postvoid residual, uroflow, International Prostate Symptom Score, and International Prostate Symptom Score quality-of-life domain. Overall satisfaction was +2 or better in 86.6% of men on the Global Response Assessment. D-BMGU is a safe, feasible, and effective technique in patients with urethral stenosis after a combination of prostatectomy and radiation therapy. Although our findings suggest this technique may result in lower rates of de novo urinary incontinence compared to conventional urethral transection and excision techniques, head-to-head comparisons are needed.

Objective: Low-intensity shock-wave treatment (LiSWT) is a therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) with good results reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of LiSWT on patients treated for ED and the influence of ED duration in treatment outcomes. Material and methods: We performed an open-label single-arm prospective study of patients treated with LiSWT for ED. Patients were assessed with the IIEF-5 at baseline and at six weeks and three months after LiSWT, and with penile dynamic Doppler ultrasound before treatment and six weeks after. Patients were divided into two groups accordingly to ED evolution time: ≤ 24 months and > 24 months. Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled, 13 had ED ≤ 24 months and 12 > 24 months. Median baseline IIEF-5 was 14, at 6 weeks post LiSWT was 16 (p < 0.001) and at 3 months post LiSWT was 18 (p < 0.001). Mean baseline peak systolic velocity (PSV) was 29.3 ± 13.0 cm/s, after LiSWT was 35.9 ± 15.2 cm/s (p 0.001). Mean baseline end-diastolic velocity (EDV) was 2.6 ± 4.8 cm/s and after LiSWT was 1.3 ± 4.3 cm/s (p 0.015). No statistical significative difference was identified between the two groups. Conclusions: LiSWT is a safe, harmless and repeatable treatment tool for ED with good outcomes reported. Our results suggest that length of disease duration doesn´t negatively influences treatment results.

Introduction: To report a series of men with a rectourethral fistula (RUF) resulting from pelvic cancer treatments and explore their therapeutic differences and impact on the functional outcomes and quality of life highlighting the adverse features that should determine permanent urinary or dual diversion. Methods: A retrospective database search was performed in four centers to identify patients with RUF resulting from pelvic cancer treatment. Medical records were analyzed for the demographics, comorbidities, diagnostic evaluation, fistula characteristics, surgical approaches and outcomes. The endpoints analyzed included a successful fistula closure following a repair and the impact of the potential adverse features on outcomes. Results: Twenty-three patients, aged 57–79 years (median 68), underwent an RUF reconstruction. The median follow-up (FU) was 54 months (range 18–115). The patients were divided into two groups according to the etiology: radiation/energy-ablation treatments with or without surgery (G1, n = 10) and surgery only (G2, n = 13). All of the patients underwent a temporary diverting colostomy and suprapubic cystostomy. Overall, a successful RUF closure was achieved in 18 (78%) patients. An interposition flap was used in six (60%) patients and one (7.7%) patient in groups G1 and G2, respectively (p = 0.019). The RUF was managed successfully in all 13 patients in group G2 as opposed to 5/10 (50%) in group G1 (p = 0.008). The patients in the radiation/energy-ablation group were more likely to require permanent dual diversion (50% vs. 0%, p < 0.0075). Conclusion: Radiation/energy-ablation therapies are associated with a more severe RUF and more complex reconstructions. Most of these patients require an abdominoperineal approach and flap interposition. The failure of an RUF repair with the need for permanent dual diversion, eventually combined with extirpative surgery, is higher after previous radiation/energy-ablation treatment. Therefore, permanent dual diversion as the primary treatment should always be included in the decision-making process as reconstruction may be futile in specific settings.

Bladder outlet obstruction following treatment of pelvic cancer, predominantly prostate cancer, occurs in 1–8% of patients. The high incidence of prostate cancer combined with the long-life expectancy after treatment has increased concerns with cancer survivorship care. However, despite increased oncological cure rates, these adverse events do occur, compromising patients’ quality of life. Non-traumatic obstruction of the posterior urethra and bladder neck include membranous and prostatic urethral stenosis and bladder neck stenosis (also known as contracture). The devastated bladder outlet can result from benign conditions, such as neurogenic dysfunction, trauma, iatrogenic causes, or more frequently from complications of oncologic treatment, such as prostate, bladder and rectum. Most posterior urethral stenoses may respond to endoluminal treatments such as dilatation, direct vision internal urethrotomy, and occasionally urethral stents. Although surgical reconstruction offers the best chance of durable success, these reconstructive options are fraught with severe complications and, therefore, are far from being ideal. In patients with prior RT, failed reconstruction, densely fibrotic and/or necrotic and calcified posterior urethra, refractory incontinence or severe comorbidities, reconstruction may not be either feasible or recommended. In these cases, urinary diversion with or without cystectomy is usually required. This review aims to discuss the diagnostic evaluation and treatment options for patients with bladder outlet obstruction with a special emphasis on patients unsuitable for reconstruction of the posterior urethra and requiring urinary diversion.