<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJU</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Urology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2160-5440</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/oju.2022.1210053</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJU-120802</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Are There Prognostic Factors for Failure of Surgical Treatment of Post-Traumatic Posterior Ureteral Stenosis? About 30 Cases and Review of the Literature
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dimitri</surname><given-names>Mbethe</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mohammed</surname><given-names>Said Moudouni</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Adrien</surname><given-names>Mougougou</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Steevy</surname><given-names>Ndang Ngou Milama</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Izoudine</surname><given-names>Bissiriou</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bilal</surname><given-names>Smith Olagui</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jean</surname><given-names>Massandé Mouyendi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Urology Department, the Mohamed 6 University Hospital of Marrakech, Marrakech, Marocco</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Urology Department, the University Hospital of Libreville, Libreville, Gabon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Urological and Visceral Surgery Department, Hospital of Instruction of the Armies Omar Bongo Ondimba, Libreville, Gabon</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>26</day><month>10</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>10</issue><fpage>539</fpage><lpage>548</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>16,</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>25,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>28,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Introduction: The management of post-traumatic stenosis of the posterior urethra is divided between early endoscopic realignment and delayed surgery. In the latter case, several techniques are used taking into account several factors. Our objective was therefore to investigate the possible prognostic factors of failure of this surgical management. 
  Material and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study from January 2006 to December 2017 on patients admitted to the Urology Department of the Mohammed 6 University Hospital of Marrakech for management of post-traumatic posterior urethral stenosis. The parameters studied were age, medical and surgical history, causes, characteristics of the stenosis (location, number, length), associated lesions, surgical technique used, and evolution. The descriptive analysis consisted of calculation of absolute and relative frequencies for the qualitative variables, and of position and dispersion parameters for the quantitative variables (mean, standard deviation). In bivariate analysis, the comparison of categorical variables used Pearson’s Chi-square statistical test and Fisher’s test if necessary. The significance threshold was set at p &lt; 0.05. 
  Results: A total of 30 cases were selected. The age of our patients varied between 18 and 68 years, with an average of 38.33 years (16 - 80 years); the most affected age group was between 20 and 39 years. The mode of revelation of urethral damage was dominated by acute retention of urine present in 76% of patients, followed by dysuria (33%). The stenosis extended over 21.91 mm on average (14 - 40 mm). It was accompanied by bone involvement in 15 patients (53.3%). Erectile dysfunction was present in 23 patients (23%). Terminal urethrogram was the main surgical technique used, followed by internal urethrotomy (60% and 30% respectively). 15 patients had a recurrence, with an average of 1-second operation. Statistical analysis of the different factors studied showed no correlation with the occurrence of recurrence after surgical treatment. 
  Conclusion: The medium and long term results of anastomotic repair of the posterior urethra do not seem to depend on the lesion parameters of the stenosis (site, number, extent, presence of associated bony lesions or erectile disorders).
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Posterior Urethra</kwd><kwd> Stenosis</kwd><kwd> Urethrogram</kwd><kwd> Endoscopic Realignment</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Urethral stricture is defined as abnormal scarring that restricts the urethral lumen. It will manifest itself clinically by obstructive urinary symptoms such as dysuria, a decrease in micturition flow, or in the extreme by acute retention of urine. It is a frequent cause of hospitalization in urology [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref1">1</xref>]. If left untreated, the obstruction constituted by the stenosis will have an impact on the bladder (pressure bladder), and then on the upper tract (ureterohydronephrosis), ultimately leading to renal failure. The causes may be infectious (recurrent urethritis, urogenital tuberculosis, urinary bilharzia), iatrogenic (endoscopic instrumental maneuvers) and traumatic causes represent between 9% and 25% of the etiologies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref1">1</xref>]. The management of post-traumatic stenosis of the posterior urethra in particular is divided between early endoscopic realignment within 10 to 15 days after the trauma, and delayed surgery after 3 months [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref3">3</xref>]. In the latter case, several surgical techniques are proposed (internal urethrotomy, terminal urethrorrhaphy, urethroplasty) taking into account factors such as the location, number, size of the stenosis, and the patient’s history. In spite of the numerous existing operative techniques, the number of recurrences of this condition remains important [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref4">4</xref>]. Our objective was therefore to search for possible prognostic factors of failure of their surgical management.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><p>We conducted a retrospective study from January 2006 to December 2017 on patients admitted to the urology department of the Mohammed 6 University Hospital of Marrakech for management of post-traumatic posterior urethral stenosis. We excluded all patients with stenosis of inflammatory or iatrogenic origin, and stenosis of the anterior urethra. A total of 30 patients were included in our study. Data entry was done on Microsoft Office 2016 software. For the elaboration of this work, we based on the patients’ records. With the help of an exploitation form, we explored the following parameters: age, medical-surgical history, causes, characteristics of the stenosis (site, number, length), associated lesions, surgical technique used, evolution. The surgical techniques used were internal urethrotomy by endoscopic approach, terminal urethrorrhaphy by perineal approach, urethroplasty with graft of the buccal mucosa. Pre and post-operative analyses of the quality of micturition are evaluated by debimetry, and the post-micturition residue. The success of the operation was defined by: the absence of recourse to another urethral surgery or to dilatation maneuvers, the obtaining of a normal micturition, with a follow-up of at least 6 months. A micturition was considered normal if it obtained the following criteria: no dysuria, debimetry ≥ 15 ml/sec without post-void residual, no appearance of stenosis on urethrography or cystoscopy. A failure was defined by, an intervention that could not result in satisfactory micturition, recourse to another urethral surgery or dilatation maneuvers. The descriptive analysis consisted of the calculation of absolute and relative frequencies for the qualitative variables, and of the position and dispersion parameters for the quantitative variables (mean, standard deviation). The normal distribution of the variables was studied by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. In bivariate analysis, the comparison of qualitative variables used Pearson’s Chi-square test and Fisher’s test if necessary. The Student t test and the Mann Whitny test were used to compare continuous variables. The significance level was set at p &lt; 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19.0 software.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>A total of 30 patients were included in our study. The age of our patients ranged from 18 to 68 years, with an average of 38.33 years (16 - 80 years); the most affected age group was between 20 and 39 years [<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>]. The main causes were public road accidents (PVA) 56.7%, followed by work-related accidents (WIA) 20% [<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>].</p><p>The mode of revelation of urethral damage was dominated by acute retention of urine present in 76.6% of patients, followed by dysuria (50%) [<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>]. The</p><p>stenosis extended over an average of 21.91 mm (14 - 40 mm). It was accompanied by bone involvement in 15 patients (50%). Erectile dysfunction was present in 8 patients (26.6%). All patients underwent surgery at least 3 months after the trauma.</p><p>Terminal urethrogram was the main surgical technique used, followed by internal urethrotomy (60% and 30% respectively) [<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>]. 19 patients (63.3%) had an immediate failure at the first operation, requiring a second surgery in 5 of them, 2 repeats in 8 cases, 3 repeats in 3 cases, 4 repeats in 2 cases and 5 repeats in 1 patient. The statistical analysis of the different factors studied, which were the characteristics of the stenosis (site, number, length), the associated lesions (bone fracture), the presence of erectile dysfunction, the surgical technique used; The analysis made by Pearson’s Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test showed that the dependence was not significant (Ch<sup>2</sup> = 0.665; ddl = 5; 1-p = 94%) [Tables 2-4], therefore, that no correlation exists between the above-mentioned factors and the occurrence of recurrences after surgical treatment.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> The most common functional signs found in patients</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Functional signs</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Pourcentage %</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dysuria</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acute urine retention</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76,6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fistula</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3,3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uretrorrhagia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23,3</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap-group id="2"><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Study of age factor</title></caption><table-wrap id="2_1"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >cross-tabulation age * recurrence</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"   rowspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Recurrence</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >non</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >oui</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >15 - 49 years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >% of Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.7%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >50 years and more</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >% of Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="2"  >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >% of age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.7%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="2_2"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Khi-deux test</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ddl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Signification asymptotic (bilat&#233;rale)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Signification exact (bilat&#233;rale)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Signification exact (unilat&#233;rale)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Khi-deux of Pearson</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.292<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.256</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.372</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.261</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >correction for continuity<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.440</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.507</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Likelihood ratio</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.421</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.233</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.372</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.261</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fisher exact test</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.372</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.261</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of valid observations</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></table-wrap-group><p>a. 2 cell (50.0%) have a theoretical staff of less than 5. Theoretical minimum staffing is 2.20. b. Calculated only for a 2 &#215; 2 table.</p><table-wrap-group id="3"><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Study of erectile dysfunction factor</title></caption><table-wrap id="3_1"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >cross-tabulation erectile dysfunction * recurrence</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"   rowspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Recurrence</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >non</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >oui</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Erectile dysfunction</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >no</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >% of erectile dysfonction</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.5%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.5%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >% of erectile dysfonction</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.5%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.5%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="2"  >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >% of erectile dysfonction</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36,7%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="3_2"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Khi-deux test</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ddl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Signification asymptotic (bilat&#233;rale)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Signification exact (bilat&#233;rale)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Signification exact (unilat&#233;rale)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Khi-deux of Pearson</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.744<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.098</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.199</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.108</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Correction for continuity<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.508</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.219</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Likelihood ratio</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.085</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.079</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.122</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.108</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fisher exact test</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.199</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.108</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >number of valid observations</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></table-wrap-group><p>a. 1 cell (25.0%) have a theoretical staff of less than 5. Theoretical minimum staffing is 2.93.</p><table-wrap-group id="4"><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Study of surgical procedure factor</title></caption><table-wrap id="4_1"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Cross-tabulation of uretroplasty * R&#233;cidive</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"   rowspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >R&#233;cidive</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >no</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >yes</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >uretroplasty</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >non</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Effectif</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.7%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100,0%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >oui</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Effectif</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.7%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100,0%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="2"  >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Effectif</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36,7%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.3%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="4_2"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Khi-deux test</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ddl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Signification asymptotique (bilat&#233;rale)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Signification exacte (bilat&#233;rale)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Signification exacte (unilat&#233;rale)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Khi-deux of Pearson</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.292<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.256</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.537</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.298</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Correction for continuity<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.255</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.613</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rapport de vraisemblance</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.239</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.266</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.537</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.298</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fisher exact test</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.537</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.298</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of valid observations</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></table-wrap-group><p>a. 2 cell (50.0%) have a theoretical staff of less than 5. Theoretical minimum staffing is 2.20. b. Calculated only for a 2 &#215; 2 table. Khi-deux of Pearson and Fisher exact test show that the dependence is not significant. Ch<sup>2</sup> = 0.665; ddl = 5; 1-p = 94%.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>Stenosis of the posterior urethra is the classic remote evolution of rupture or contusion of the urethra following trauma to it. The most affected age group in our study was between 20 and 39 years, with an average age of 38.33 years (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). These results are similar to those found by Eddahioui M.A in Morocco [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref5">5</xref>]. Ndour NS et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref4">4</xref>] in Senegal found an average age of 58.7 years, with the most affected age group being 40 to 49 years. However, it should be noted that his study included all etiologies (inflammatory and traumatic) and all sites of stenosis (anterior and posterior). This age range found in our study can be explained by the fact that young people are the population most affected by road accidents, which are the main cause of trauma to the posterior urethra (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p><p>The mode of revelation of urethral injury was dominated by acute retention of urine (ARU) present in 76.6% of patients, followed by dysuria (50%). Vladimir B et al. in the USA [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref6">6</xref>] found UAR in 91% of patients associated with urethral bleeding in 87%.</p><p>In our study, the stenosis was extended over 21.91 millimeters (mm) on average (14 - 40 mm), while Ndour et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref3">3</xref>] found an average length of 17.3 mm. It was accompanied by bone involvement in 15 patients (50%). Diallo A.B et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref7">7</xref>] found 56 patients (64.4%) with associated bone damage in 87 cases of trauma to the posterior urethra. These data confirm those of the literature which describe ruptures of the posterior urethra as a frequent complication of pelvic fractures.</p><p>Erectile dysfunction was present in 23 patients (23%). Aboutaieb et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref8">8</xref>] in their study of 35 cases of trauma to the posterior urethra, divided into 2 groups according to the mode of management (delayed emergency repair group 1 or delayed repair group 2), found respectively 18.75% (3 cases out of 16) and 5.3% (1 case out of 19). Diallo et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref7">7</xref>], who also divided their patients into two groups, found respectively 19.2% (5 cases) and 38.9% (14 cases) for groups 1 and 2. This disparity of results could be explained by the fact that in our study, all patients had a late repair, and the evaluation of erectile function was only done preoperatively (but at a distance, within 3 months after the trauma).</p><p>Terminal urethrogram was the main surgical technique used, followed by internal urethrotomy (60 and 30% respectively) [<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>].</p><p>Numerous studies have compared the two main surgical techniques (early endoscopic realignment and deferred terminal urethrogram) with results that remain controversial [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref11">11</xref>]. Boulma R et al. in Tunisia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref5">5</xref>] found in a cohort of 30 patients, 85% of success in case of endoscopic realignment against 70% for deferred urethrorraphy. Jonathan N et al. in the USA [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref12">12</xref>] on a review of the literature on 29 articles evaluating erectile disorders, incontinence and the occurrence of recurrence according to the surgical technique adopted, found a significant statistical difference only for the occurrence of recurrence (p &lt; 0.1), this being in favour of early endoscopic realignment. On the other hand, Qingsong Zou et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref13">13</xref>] in China on a cohort of 522 patients, showed that early endoscopic realignment was associated with a greater number of secondary recurrences even if these stenoses were shorter and therefore reparable by endoscopic internal urethrotomy.</p><p>Barbara Cereda [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref8">8</xref>] in a multicenter study of 36 patients, shows that on clinically relevant criteria of rate of return to normal and definitive micturition, and time to achieve this, the results of deferred urethroplasty are better. It therefore recommends that deferred urethroplasty should be preferred; the place of early endoscopic realignment remains to be defined. In our study, no patient benefited from early endoscopic realignment because of their late management (on average three months after trauma). The recurrence rate in our study was 50%, whereas Liberman D et al. in the USA [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref4">4</xref>] reported in a review of the literature on the follow-up of patients who had undergone posterior urethroplasty, recurrence rates of around 34%. The difference could be explained by the existence of reference centers for the management of pelvi-perineal pathology in the USA, which therefore have greater expertise. Koraitim [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref14">14</xref>] looked at the factors that can affect the long-term results of anastomotic repair of the posterior urethra. He concluded that the delay in management (minimum 4 months after the trauma), the surgical approach depending on the extent and location of the stenosis (perineal or abdominoperineal approach), the type of suture used for the anastomosis (3/0 in adults and 4/0 in children), in the case of a trans-pubic urethroplasty, the omental envelopment of the intra-abdominal segment of the bulbar urethra and of the anastomosis site, are the determining factors for the long-term success of the posterior urethroplasty. Bensouda A et al. in Morocco [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref15">15</xref>] and Anis J et al. in Tunisia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref16">16</xref>], who studied terminal urethrorrhaphy by the trans-symphysis route, did not record any notable complications in the immediate postoperative period or in the long term. This leads them to conclude that this route can be an excellent approach for the treatment of complex lesions of the posterior urethra seen late.</p><p>All our patients operated on by terminal urethrogram had a perineal approach. Podesta et al. in Argentina [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref17">17</xref>] who studied the management of posterior urethral stenosis in children and adolescents, concluded from a review of the literature that deferred terminal urethrogramming (by perineal or trans-pubic approach according to the surgeons’ preferences) remains the gold standard, the abdominoperineal approach will be reserved for complex lesions. Our cohort did not include any children. The review of the literature did not find any study correlating factors such as the location, number and extent of the stenosis and the occurrence of recurrence. Blaschko S.D et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.120802-ref18">18</xref>] examined the incidence of erectile dysfunction in pelvic fractures with urethral injury. In a review of the literature including 24 articles, he showed that 34% of the patients had initial erectile dysfunction and that depending on the surgical method used, early endoscopic realignment or delayed surgery, this percentage decreased to 16 and 3% respectively, thus favouring delayed surgery. The statistical analysis of the different factors studied, which were the characteristics of the stenosis (site, number, length), the associated lesions (bone fracture), the presence of erectile dysfunction, the surgical technique used; Analysis by Pearson’s Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test showed that the dependence was not significant (Ch2 = 0.665; ddl = 5; 1-p = 94%) [Tables 1-3], so that there was no correlation between the above-mentioned factors and the occurrence of recurrences after surgical treatment. The number of patients in the cohort is the main limitation of this study.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>The medium and long term results of anastomotic repair of the posterior urethra do not seem to depend on the lesion parameters of the stenosis (site, number, extent, presence of associated bony lesions or erectile disorders).</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Mbethe, D., Moudouni, M.S., Mougougou, A., Milama, S.N.N., Bissiriou, I., Olagui, B.S. and Mouyendi, J.M. (2022) Are There Prognostic Factors for Failure of Surgical Treatment of Post-Traumatic Posterior Ureteral Stenosis? About 30 Cases and Review of the Literature. Open Journal of Urology, 12, 539-548. https://doi.org/10.4236/oju.2022.1210053</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.120802-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Eddahioui, M.A. (2021) Les sténoses de l’urètre (à propos de 220 cas). Faculté de Médecine et de pharmacie de Marrakech. Thèse n&amp;#176;200, Année.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stein, D.M. and Santucci, R.A. (2015) Endoscopic Realignment for Pelvic Fracture Urethral Injuries. Translational Andrology and Urology, 4, 72-78.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ndour, N.S., Diamé, I.D. and Diallo, Y. (2018) Prise en charge du rétrécissement de l’urètre: Notre expérience en milieu rural. Uro’Andro, 1, 528-532.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Liberman, D., Pagliara, T.J., Pisansky, A. and Elliott, S.P. (2015) Evaluation of the Outcomes after Posterior Urethroplasty. Arab Journal of Urology, 13, 53-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2015.02.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boulma, R., Kallel, Y., Sellami, A., et al. (2013) Le réalignement endoscopique versus urétrorraphie termino-terminale tardive dans le traitement des ruptures post-traumatiques de l’urètre: Notre expérience à propos de 30 cas. La Tunisie Médicale, 91, 332-336.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mouraviev, V.B., Coburn, M. and Santucci, R.A. (2005) The Treatment of Posterior Urethral Disruption Associated with Pelvic Fractures: Comparative Experience of Early Realignment versus Delayed Urethroplasty. The Journal of Urology, 173, 873-876. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000152145.33215.36</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Diallo, A.B., Barry, M., Bah, I., Diallo, A.T., et al. (2007) Les ruptures traumatiques de l’urètre postérieur: Analyse de 87 cas au CHU de Conakry. African Journal of Urology, 13, 214-217.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ceredas, B. (2018) Prise en charge des traumatismes de l’urètre postérieur dans les fractures du bassin chez l’homme adulte: Comparaison du réalignement endoscopique précoce versus urétroplastie différée. Médecine humaine et pathologie. HAL Id: dumas-02956279. https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-02956279 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2019.08.070</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Johnsen, N.V., Dmochowski, R.R., Mock, S., et al. (2016) Primary Endoscopic Realignment of Urethral Disruption Injuries—A Double-Edged Sword? European Urology, 69, 536-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.022</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jepson, B.R., et al. (1999) Traumatic Posterior Urethral Injury and Early Primary Endoscopic Realignment: Evaluation of Long-Term Follow-Up. Urology, 53, 1205-1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00003-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Elshout, P.J., Veskimae, E., MacLennan, S., et al. (2017) Outcomes of Early Endoscopic Realignment versus Suprapubic Cystostomy and Delayed Urethroplasty for Pelvic Fracture-Related Posterior Urethral Injuries: A Systematic Review. European Urology Focus, 3, 545-553.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Warner, J.N. and Santucci, R.A. (2015) The Management of the Acute Setting of Pelvic Fracture Urethral Injury (Realignment vs. Suprapubic Cystostomy Alone). Arab Journal of Urology, 13, 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2014.08.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zou, Q.S., Zhou, S.K., Zhang, K.L., et al. (2017) The Immediate Management of Pelvic Fracture Urethral Injury: Endoscopic Realignment or Cystostomy? The Journal of Urology, 198, 869-874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.081</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koraitim, M.M. (2015) Optimising the Outcome after Anastomotic Posterior Urethroplasty. Arab Journal of Urology, 13, 27-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2014.12.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bensouda, A., Bentaleb, H., Reffad, J., et al. (2009) Abord trans-symphysaire des ruptures posttramatiques de l’urètre postérieur chez l’adulte. Abord trans-symphysaire des ruptures post-tramatiques de l’urètre postérieur chez l’adulte. African Journal of Urology, 15, 206-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12301-009-0038-z</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anis, J., Amna, M.B., Hajri, M., et al. (2002) La voie périnéo-trans-symphysaire dans le traitement des ruptures traumatiques de l’urètre postérieur. Annales d’Urologie, 36, 318-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4401(02)00121-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Podesta, M. and Podesta, M. (2019) Traumatic Posterior Urethral Strictures in Children and Adolescents. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 7, Article No. 24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00024</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.120802-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Blaschko, S.D., Sanford, M.T., Schlomer, B.J., et al. (2015) The Incidence of Erectile Dysfunction after Pelvic Fracture Urethral Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arab Journal of Urology, 13, 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2014.09.004</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>