Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Rob Pickard, Dr Sonya Carnell, Dr Jing Shen, Dr Matthew Breckons, Professor Luke ValeORCiD, Dr Paul Whybrow, Professor Tim Rapley, Rebecca Forbes, Stephanie CurrerORCiD, Dr Jennifer Wilkinson, Emerita Professor Elaine McCollORCiD, Stewart Barclay
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020.Background: Men who suffer recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture have to decide between endoscopic urethrotomy and open urethroplasty to manage their urinary symptoms. Evidence of relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking. Objectives: To assess benefit, harms and cost-effectiveness of open urethroplasty compared with endoscopic urethrotomy as treatment for recurrent urethral stricture in men. Design: Parallel-group, open-label, patient-randomised trial of allocated intervention with 6-monthly follow-ups over 24 months. Target sample size was 210 participants providing outcome data. Participants, clinicians and local research staff could not be blinded to allocation. Central trial staff were blinded when needed. Setting: UK NHS with recruitment from 38 hospital sites. Participants: A total of 222 men requiring operative treatment for recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture who had received at least one previous intervention for stricture. Interventions: A centralised randomisation system using random blocks allocated participants 1: 1 to open urethroplasty (experimental group) or endoscopic urethrotomy (control group). Main outcome measures: The primary clinical outcome was control of urinary symptoms. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 24 months. The main secondary outcome was the need for reintervention for stricture recurrence. Results: The mean difference in the area under the curve of repeated measurement of voiding symptoms scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 24 (severe symptoms) between the two groups was –0.36 [95% confidence interval (CI) –1.78 to 1.02; p = 0.6]. Mean voiding symptom scores improved between baseline and 24 months after randomisation from 13.4 [standard deviation (SD) 4.5] to 6 (SD 5.5) for urethroplasty group and from 13.2 (SD 4.7) to 6.4 (SD 5.3) for urethrotomy. Reintervention was less frequent and occurred earlier in the urethroplasty group (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89; p = 0.02). There were two postoperative complications requiring reinterventions in the group that received urethroplasty and five, including one death from pulmonary embolism, in the group that received urethrotomy. Over 24 months, urethroplasty cost on average more than urethrotomy (cost difference £2148, 95% CI £689 to £3606) and resulted in a similar number of QALYs (QALY difference –0.01, 95% CI –0.17 to 0.14). Therefore, based on current evidence, urethrotomy is considered to be cost-effective. Limitations: We were able to include only 69 (63%) of the 109 men allocated to urethroplasty and 90 (80%) of the 113 men allocated to urethrotomy in the primary complete-case intention-to-treat analysis. Conclusions: The similar magnitude of symptom improvement seen for the two procedures over 24 months of follow-up shows that both provide effective symptom control. The lower likelihood of further intervention favours urethroplasty, but this had a higher cost over the 24 months of follow-up and was unlikely to be considered cost-effective.
Author(s): Pickard R, Goulao B, Carnell S, Shen J, Maclennan G, Norrie J, Breckons M, Vale L, Whybrow P, Rapley T, Forbes R, Currer S, Forrest M, Wilkinson J, McColl E, Andrich D, Barclay S, Cook J, Mundy A, N'Dow J, Payne S, Watkin N
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Health Technology Assessment
Year: 2020
Volume: 24
Issue: 61
Pages: 1-110
Online publication date: 01/11/2020
Acceptance date: 02/04/2018
ISSN (print): 1366-5278
ISSN (electronic): 2046-4924
Publisher: NIHR Journals Library
URL: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta24610
DOI: 10.3310/hta24610
PubMed id: 33228846
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
