ArticleWorld journal of urology2020
RE Re Do urethroplasty after multiple failed surgeries of pelvic fracture urethral injury.
Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pedicled tubularized flaps for the treatment of bulbar urethral necrosis.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Management of pelvic fracture urethral injury.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Review
- Article
- Redo inferior pubectomy for failed anastomotic urethroplasty in pelvic fracture urethral injury.Current urology · 2024Article
- Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Delayed Anastomotic Urethroplasty for Male Pelvic Fracture Urethral Injury at a Japanese Referral Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Redo pelvic fracture urethral injury repair: The case for tadalafil.Turkish journal of urology · 2021Article
- Genitourinary reconstruction.World journal of urology · 2020Article
- The Urological Society of India Guidelines for the management of urethral stricture (Executive Summary).Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe quantify surgical success rate in the management of pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI) with repeat urethroplasty in the setting of two or more failed prior urethroplasties. MATERIALS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective analysis was completed of a single surgeon urethroplasty database from Jan 1, 2012 to June 31, 2018. Patients with a history of PFUI recurrent urethral stricture despite two or more failed prior urethroplasty procedures were included.
resultsWe identified 87 patients that had two more more failed prior urethroplasties. These had 2 main categories. One requiring anastomotic urethroplasty and other requiring substitution urethroplasty. Total success rate was 74.75% for anastomotic group and 84.61% for substitution group with a median follow-up of 34 months (range 6-60). Overall success rate for re redo Urethroplasty was 82.70%. Bulbar urethral ischemic necrosis was identified in 14 of 64 patients (21.9%). In these cases urethral substitution measures were performed including 12 with preputial flap and tubularization, 1 sigmoid colon substitution, medial thigh flap. No significant difference was observed between the success or failure group with respect to age, BMI, stricture length, number of prior urethroplasty procedure or endoscopic procedures or comorbidities.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that high success rates can be achieved for repeat urethroplasty in recurrent PFUI urethral stricture after two or more failed prior urethroplasty procedures. Bulbar urethral ischemic necrosis is a common finding in this patient population. Patients should be managed at a tertiary high volume referral center.
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.