ABSTRACT
Introduction The rarity in detecting female urethral stricture (FUS) backed by the inconsistency regarding the cutoff on the caliber to direct any treatment for its increase poses a challenge to its existence. Therefore, the present study was conducted to determine the caliber of the urethra that clearly identifies a FUS. Materials and method In this prospective observational study conducted between November 2015 and July 2017, women with obstructive lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and a history of relief on at least a single urethral dilatation were included if the American Urological Association (AUA) score was more than seven and the maximum flow rate (Qmax) was less than 20 mL/sec. Of the 71 women recruited, 10 women had recognizable external causes: caruncle (five), mucosal prolapse (three), and meatal stenosis (two). The remaining 61 underwent voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) and urodynamics followed by urethrocystoscopy, if the findings suggested a stricture. A definitive diagnosis was sought in those without stricture disease. We categorized all patients as either having a "true" stricture or an alternate etiology. Categorical variables were presented in number and percentage (%) and continuous variables as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Results The mean dilatation ranged between one and six; the mean AUA score, ~17.82 ± 3.59; mean Qmax, ~10.21 ± 3.39 mL/sec; and the mean post-void residue (PVR), 106.65 ± 51 mL. A total of 29 patients were diagnosed to have stricture (dense = 17; flimsy = 12). None of the patients in this group had a urethral caliber of more than 14 French (Fr). Other etiologies were dysfunctional voiding (17), underactive bladder (seven), cystocele (four), and primary bladder neck obstruction (PBNO) (four). Conclusion Women with voiding LUTS should be screened for FUS only if the urethral caliber is ≤14 Fr.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To present our stepwise approach to the management of penile strangulation and penile preservation with 15 years' experience in a tertiary care hospital, as penile strangulation is a rare urological emergency that requires immediate attention. Patients and methods: A prospective observational study was performed from March 2003 to December 2018 of patients presenting with penile strangulation to our hospital. Results: Nine patients with penile strangulation presented to us between March 2003 and December 2018. The most common motive for the application of a foreign body was sexual gratification (four patients). Three of the nine patients had a mental disorder. Objects used for strangulation included: metallic nut (three), metallic ring (two), plastic bottle (two), wooden hole (one), hammer head (one), and horse hair to control bleeding during circumcision (one). Most of the foreign bodies were located in the proximal penile region. The mean operative time was 38 min and three of the nine patients had complications. Conclusions: Penile strangulation is one of the rare urological emergencies experienced by a urologist. Removal of the foreign body can be difficult and there is no universal method of removal, as each case differs. So, following our stepwise approach can aid in removal of foreign body quickly and preserve the penis from fatal outcomes. Urologist should be aware of all the available armamentarium used for the removal of such foreign bodies. Abbreviation: SPC: suprapubic cystostomy.
