To better appreciate the patient experience, we followed patients with HIFU urethral stenosis-strictures longitudinally even when they did not have a specific treatment at our Center. It became very apparent that when posterior urethral stenosis developed as a complication of HIFU, there was a severe impact on the patient’s quality of life long-term as this represented a chronic condition to be managed rather than a problem highly amenable to curative treatment.
As we reviewed the HIFU literature, we were disappointed to observe that those who perform HIFU and report stenosis as a complication never really provide much detail. Was the patient evaluated with a retrograde urethrogram and voiding cystourethrogram and antegrade cystoscopy when there was a suprapubic tube before endoscopic treatment? It may be mentioned that certain patients “required dilation or internal urethrotomy” for treatment, but then what? Was the patient cured (unlikely), or did the patient have to self catheterize with increasing difficulty and then come to the Emergency Room in retention repeatedly and ultimately undergo suprapubic tube placement? These details matter, yet the HIFU literature does not include these details.
Our study does not address the incidence of these complications with whole gland or focal HIFU as we do not treat prostate cancer. The objective was to create awareness that when there is stenosis stricture, it is not an insignificant complication. It is, in general, a more severe complication than stenosis after radiation therapy. It is our hope that those who public HIFU outcomes will provide more specific information about these complications than what has been reported to date.
Written by: David W. Barham, MD, & Joel Gelman, MD, Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine
Read the Abstract