↓ Skip to main content

Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy - clarifying the management of men with recurrent urethral stricture (the OPEN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy - clarifying the management of men with recurrent urethral stricture (the OPEN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-1120-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Stephenson, Sonya Carnell, Nicola Johnson, Robbie Brown, Jennifer Wilkinson, Anthony Mundy, Steven Payne, Nick Watkin, James N’Dow, Andrew Sinclair, Rowland Rees, Stewart Barclay, Jonathan A. Cook, Beatriz Goulao, Graeme MacLennan, Gladys McPherson, Matthew Jackson, Tim Rapley, Jing Shen, Luke Vale, John Norrie, Elaine McColl, Robert Pickard

Abstract

Urethral stricture is a common cause of difficulty passing urine in men with prevalence of 0.5 %; about 62,000 men in the UK. The stricture is usually sited in the bulbar part of the urethra causing symptoms such as reduced urine flow. Initial treatment is typically by endoscopic urethrotomy but recurrence occurs in about 60 % of men within 2 years. The best treatment for men with recurrent bulbar stricture is uncertain. Repeat endoscopic urethrotomy opens the narrowing but it usually scars up again within 2 years requiring repeated procedures. The alternative of open urethroplasty involves surgically reconstructing the urethra, which may need an oral mucosal graft. It is a specialist procedure with a longer recovery period but may give lower risk of recurrence. In the absence of firm evidence as to which is best, individual men have to trade off the invasiveness and possible benefit of each option. Their preference will be influenced by individual social circumstances, availability of local expertise and clinician guidance. The open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy (OPEN) trial aims to better guide the choice of treatment for men with recurrent urethral strictures by comparing benefit over 2 years in terms of symptom control and need for further treatment. OPEN is a pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised trial. Men with recurrent bulbar urethral strictures (at least one previous treatment) will be randomised to undergo endoscopic urethrotomy or open urethroplasty. Participants will be followed for 24 months after randomisation, measuring symptoms, flow rate, the need for re-intervention, health-related quality of life, and costs. The primary clinical outcome is the difference in symptom control over 24 months measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of a validated score. The trial has been powered at 90 % with a type I error rate of 5 % to detect a 0.1 difference in AUC measured on a 0-1 scale. The analysis will be based on all participants as randomised (intention-to-treat). The primary economic outcome is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year. A qualitative study will assess willingness to be randomised and hence ability to recruit to the trial. The OPEN Trial seeks to clarify relative benefit of the current options for surgical treatment of recurrent bulbar urethral stricture which differ in their invasiveness and resources required. Our feasibility study identified that participation would be limited by patient preference and differing recruitment styles of general and specialist urologists. We formulated and implemented effective strategies to address these issues in particular by inviting participation as close as possible to diagnosis. In addition re-calculation of sample size as recruitment progressed allowed more efficient design given the limited target population and funding constraints. Recruitment is now to target. ISRCTN98009168 Date of registration: 29 November 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 22 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 39%
Psychology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 27 38%