ABSTRACT The surgical treatment of bulbar urethral strictures is still one of the most challenging reconstructive-surgery problems. Bulbar urethral strictures are usually categorized as traumatic and non-traumatic strictures depending on the aetiology. The traumatic strictures are caused by trauma and they determine disruption of the urethra with obliteration of the urethral lumen, ending with fibrotic gaps between the urethral ends. Differently, the non-traumatic urethral strictures are mainly caused by catheterization, instrumentation, and infection, or they can also be idiopathic. They are usually associated with spongiofibrosis of the segment of the urethra that has been involved. Worldwide, two different surgical approaches are currently adopted for bulbar urethral repair: transecting techniques with end-to-end anastomosis and non-transecting techniques followed by grafting. Traumatic obliterated strictures require transection of the urethra allowing complete removal of the fibrotic tissue that involves the urethral ends. Conversely, non-traumatic, non-obliterated urethral strictures require augmentation of the urethral plate using oral mucosa grafts. Nowadays, it is still difficult to choose the correct surgical management for non-obliterated bulbar stricture repair. Indeed, different surgical techniques have been proposed (pedicled flap vs free graft, dorsal vs ventral placement of the graft, non-transecting technique using or non-using free graft, etc.) but none emerged as the best solution since all techniques have showed similar success and complication rates. Consequently, the final choice is still based on surgeon’s preferences and patient’s characteristics. Within the current manuscript, we like to present some of our tips and tricks that we developed along our prolonged surgical experience on the treatment of bulbar urethral strictures. These might be of interest for surgeons that approach this complex surgery. Moreover, our suggestions want to be useful regardless the type of chosen technique being adaptable for different scenario.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Pubic hypertrophy, defined as an abnormal and abundant round mass of fatty tissue located over the pubic symphysis, is frequently underestimated in patients with hypospadias. We examined the prevalence of this condition, as well as the outcomes associated with its surgical treatment. Material and methods: Within 266 hypospadias patients treated at our clinic, we assessed the prevalence of pubic hypertrophy, and we schematically described the surgical steps of pubic lipectomy. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) tested for predictors of pubic hypertrophy. Finally, separate MLRs tested for predictors of fistula and any complications after pubic lipectomy. Results: Of 266 hypospadias patients, 100 (37.6%) presented pubic hypertrophy and underwent pubic lipectomy. Patients with pubic hypertrophy more frequently had proximal hypospadias (44 vs. 7.8%), disorders of sex development (DSD) (10 vs. 0.6%), cryptorchidism (12 vs. 2.4%), and moderate (30°-60°) or severe (>60°) penile curvature (33 vs. 4.2%). In MLR, the location of urethral meatus (proximal, Odds ratio [OR]: 10.1, p<0.001) was the only significant predictor of pubic hypertrophy. Finally, pubic lipectomy was not associated with increased risk of fistula (OR: 1.12, p=0.7) or any complications (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 0.64-2.88, p=0.4) after multivariable adjustment. Conclusions: One out of three hypospadias patients, referred to our center, presented pubic hypertrophy and received pubic lipectomy. This rate was higher in patients with proximal hypospadias suggesting a correlation between pubic hypertrophy and severity of hypospadias. Noteworthy, pubic lipectomy was not associated with increased risk of fistula or any complications.

We performed an overview of the surgical techniques suggested for the treatment of anterior urethral strictures using MEDLINE. In applying the MEDLINE search, we used the "MeSH" (Medical Subject Heading) and "free text" protocols. The MeSH search was conducted by combining the following terms: "urethral stricture", "flap", "graft", "oral mucosa", "urethroplasty", "urethrotomy" and "failed hypospadias". Multiple "free text" searches were performed individually applying the following terms through all fields of the records: "reconstructive urethral surgery", "end-to-end anastomosis", "one-stage", "two stage". Descriptive statistics of the articles were provided. Meta-analyses were not employed. Seventy-eight articles were determined to be germane in this review. Six main topics were identified as controversial in anterior urethra surgery: the use of oral mucosa vs penile skin; the use of free grafts vs pedicled flaps in penile urethroplasty; the use of grafts vs anastomotic repair in bulbar urethral strictures; the use of dorsal vs ventral placement of the graft in bulbar urethroplasty; the use of definitive perineal urethrostomy vs one-stage repair in complex urethral strictures; the surgical options for patients with failed hypospadias repair. Different points of view are documented and presented in the literature by various authors from different countries. The aim of this clinical overview is to survey the main controversial issues in surgical reconstruction of the anterior urethra focusing on the use of flap or graft, substitute material, type of surgery and challenging situations, such as failed hypospadias or complex urethral stricture repair.