Erectile function after different techniques of bulbar urethroplasty: does urethral transection make a difference?

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the impact of urethral transection after different techniques of bulbar urethroplasty on erectile function outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records for 245 patients who underwent different urethroplasty techniques for bulbar urethral stricture between February 2013 and January 2021. The comparison between the transecting and non-transecting cohorts included patients' demographics, clinicopathological features of the urethral stricture, post-urethroplasty erectile function, and success of urethroplasty. Outcomes were erectile function status verified by IIEF5-15 score at preoperative, three months, and 12 months post-surgery. We defined Post-urethroplasty ED as a decrease of 5 points or more. RESULTS: The urethroplasty success rate of the entire cohort was 86.9% after a mean follow-up of 45.59 ± 21 months. Out of 245 patients, 18 (7.3%) experienced 90-day complications. Transecting bulbar urethroplasty techniques were performed in 74 patients (30.2%), while non-transecting techniques were performed in 171 patients (69.8%). there were no differences between the cohorts regarding urethroplasty success (87.8% Vs. 86.5%, Mantel-Cox test p = 0.93) or postoperative complications (8.1% Vs. 7%, p = 0.73). Transient ED was evident in the transecting cohort as reported in 8.1% compared to 2.9% for the non-transecting (p = 0.07).Still, but de novo permanent ED was comparable (4.1% Vs. 2.9%, p = 0.65), for transecting and non-transecting, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Unfortunately, some patients who undergo transecting techniques of bulbar urethroplasty experience transient erectile dysfunction that can improve within the first post- urethroplasty year; however, de novo permanent erectile dysfunction is uncommon after different techniques of bulbar urethroplasty and is not predisposed by urethral transection.

Promise of Real-World Evidence for Patient Centricity in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: Call to Action.

Presently, Gulf Cooperation Council countries are lagging in the generation of real-world data and use of real-world evidence for patient-centered care compared with the global average. In a collaborative effort, experts from multiple domains of the healthcare environment from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries came together to present their views and recommended key action points for the generation of robust real-world data and leveraging real-world evidence in the countries. The opinions of the experts are presented, along with existing barriers to the effective generation of real-world evidence in the countries. The Gulf Cooperation Council countries are undergoing transformative changes paving the way for improved healthcare measures; however, the challenges in generating reliable, robust, accessible, and secure real-world evidence are persistent. Hence, ongoing public-private engagements, as well as collaborations between regulators, policymakers, healthcare professionals, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and patients, are warranted. A few notable examples of real-world evidence studies highlighting the benefits of real-world evidence for gaining valuable insights into patient-centric decision making are also discussed. The actionable steps identified for successful real-world evidence generation would provide long-term, real-world evidence-based patient-centric benefits for the countries.