Imaging of the Male Urethra
The most common methods for imaging the male urethra are retrograde urethrography (RUG) and voiding cystourethrography (VCUG). In order to formulate a proper management plan, an accurate and well-executed study is essential to determine stricture presence, number, location, degree, and length. Conventional urethrography is performed under fluoroscopy with the hip tilted and the penis slightly stretched. Inadequate oblique images will underestimate “true” stricture length and the pubic bones may obscure the posterior urethra. VCUG is most valuable for assessing the posterior urethra, the proximal extent of stenoses, and their functional significance. Other modalities, such as MRI, CT, and sonourethrography, have an important yet limited role in urethral evaluation. MRI has particular value in evaluating the pelvic fracture patient with associated urethral disruption injury. Sonourethrography is particularly accurate at determining true bulbar urethral stricture length and extent of luminal narrowing. Detailed herein are such imaging techniques and the imaging characteristics of both the normal and abnormal male urethra.
KeywordsUrethral Stricture Suspensory Ligament Anterior Urethra Stricture Length Membranous Urethra
- 1.Rosen MA. Preoperative staging of the anterior urethral stricture: traumatic and reconstructive urology. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1996. p. 551–64.Google Scholar
- 10.Pushkarna R, Bhargava SK, Jain M. Ultrasonographic evaluation of abnormalities of the male anterior urethra. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2000;10(2):89–91.Google Scholar
- 11.Eaton J, Richenberg J. Imaging of the urethra. Curr Status Imaging. 2005;17:139–49.Google Scholar
- 14.Dixon CM, McAninch JW. Preoperative staging of posterior urethral disruptions. In: McAninch JW, editor. Traumatic and reconstructive urology. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1996. p. 377–84.Google Scholar
- 17.Armenakas NA, McAninch JW. Acute anterior urethral injuries: diagnosis and initial management. In: McAninch JW, editor. Traumatic and reconstructive urology. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1996. p. 547.Google Scholar