Adherence to the Right Diagno

pp s ge itto of urethral strictures. In other words, the radiologic investigation must be tailored according to the message and conclusions reported by the authors. The authors presents a limited series of 20 e u r o p e a n u r o l og y 5 0 ( 2 0 0 6) 4 2 4 – 4 2 5 avai lable at www.sc iencedi rect.com journal homepage: www.europeanurology.compeculiar features that the disease shows in any single patient. Patients with lichen sclerosus disease or patients with failed hypospadias repair require clinical and radiologic preoperative assessment completely different from that for patients with pelvic trauma and posterior urethral defects. Basically, the goal of a patient’s evaluation is to identify the history, site, number and length of stricture, extent of spongiofibrosis, and presence of associated conditions such as periurethral abscess or fistula and to rule out the presence of malignancy [2]. The imaging methods currently available for staging anterior and posterior urethral strictures are patients and do not provide information on the clinical history, etiology, or site of the urethral strictures, emphasizing only information on the stricture length, degree of spongiofibrosis, and associated pathologic conditions. Osman and col-leagues did not say if they used MRI in patients with penile urethral strictures or only in patients with bulbar and posterior strictures. They did not state if MRI was used in patients with failed hypospadias repair or lichen sclerosus diseases. The authors compare RUG and MRI in a very limited and select group of patients and it is not possible to draw the conclusion that the MRI is a promising tool fo