ReviewAsian journal of urology2019
Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Asian journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Crafting the graft: an umbrella review of long-term outcomes and complications for various graft usage in urethral reconstruction.BMC urology · 2026Pooled it
- Lingual versus buccal mucosal graft for augmentation urethroplasty: a meta-analysis of surgical outcomes and patient-reported donor site morbidity.International urology and nephrology · 2021Pooled it
- A nation-wide multi-institutional evaluation of oral versus colonic mucosal grafts for the treatment of complex long-segment urethral strictures: comparative long-term outcomes and analysis of complications from China.International urology and nephrology · 2026Observational
- Staged buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty in the treatment of male urethral war injuries.BMC urology · 2026Review
- Effects of Lingual Mucosal Grafts with Different Thicknesses on Repair of Rabbit Bladder Defects.Research and reports in urology · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted reconstruction of posterior urethral stenosis: surgical techniques, graft use, and clinical outcomes.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Review
- New measurement method for long-term oral complications after harvesting buccal mucosa grafts for urethroplasty.Head & face medicine · 2025Article
- A TriNetX Registry Analysis of the Need for Second Procedures following Index Anterior and Posterior Urethroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Fast Track Surgery as the Latest Multimodal Strategy of Enhanced Recovery after Urethroplasty.Advances in urology · 2023Article
- Histological Comparison of Buccal and Lingual Mucosa Grafts for Urethroplasty: Do They Share Tissue Structures and Vascular Supply?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Treatment of Meatal Strictures by Dorsal Inlay Oral Mucosa Graft Urethroplasty: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- The Changing Trend in Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Male Patients With Urethral Stricture Over the Past 10 Years in China.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Onlay Repair Technique for the Management of Ureteral Strictures: A Comprehensive Review.BioMed research international · 2020Review
- Role of lingual mucosa as a graft material in the surgical treatment of Peyronie's disease.Urology annalsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsTwenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5-16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95-2.87],
conclusionLMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent.
Indexed as
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.