ArticleTurkish journal of urology2019
Outcome of patients with failed pelvic fracture-associated urethral injury repair: A single centre 10-year experience.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Excision primary anastomosis urethroplasty with gracilis muscle flap for management of complex stricture with prostatorectal fistula and failure of multiple surgeries: A case report.Urology case reports · 2025Article
- Management of pelvic fracture urethral injury.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Review
- Article
- Utilising anterolateral bladder flap to create a continent cutaneous diversion in a patient with pelvic fracture urethral injury.BMJ case reports · 2023Article
- Could the bulbar urethral end location on the cystourethrogram predict the outcome after posterior urethroplasty for pelvic fracture urethral injury?Arab journal of urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe management of recurrent posterior urethral strictures developing after pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI) is a challenging task. Despite availability of many surgical approaches, there is no consensus regarding the optimal approach. The objective of this study was to present our 10-year experience in the management of recurrent urethral strictures due to PFUI. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe did a retrospective single-institution review of patients who underwent surgical management for recurrent posterior urethral strictures from January 2006 to December 2016 using descriptive statistics. We included only those patients with PFUI who underwent some definitive surgical procedure for their previous failed repair(s).
resultsThe final analysis included data of 50 male patients (10 adolescents and 40 adults). Mean age of the patients was 29.92±10.62 years. The average length of stricture was 3.02±1.47 cm. Progressive perineal urethroplasty (PPU) was done in 40 cases. Two patients with concomitant rectourethral fistula/false passage underwent transpubic urethroplasty (TPU). Three patients with complete bulbar necrosis were managed with single stage/staged preputial tube reconstruction. One patient underwent microsurgical urethroplasty using radial free forearm flap while in two patients each Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy and perineal urethrostomy was done. Majority of complications were minor (Clavien Grade 1 and 2). Overall success rate of PPU was 75%. Mean follow-up period was 29.46±10.68 months (range: 13-60 months).
conclusionMost cases of recurrent posterior urethral strictures of <3 cm in length can be operated by PPU with reasonable success rates. Complex and long-segment (higher than 3 cm) strictures require use of ancillary procedures like TPU, substitution urethroplasty and Mitrofanoff appendicovescostomy.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.