Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32770388›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2021

Patient-reported outcomes for typical single cheek harvesting vs atypical lingual, labial or bilateral cheeks harvesting: a single-center analysis of more than 800 patients.

Guido Barbagli, Marco Bandini, Sofia Balò, Francesco Montorsi, Salvatore Sansalone, Mauro De Dominicis, Denis Butnaru, Massimo Lazzeri

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. "Primary" bulbar urethral ischemic necrosis following pelvic fracture urethral injury: A rare surgical challenge.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Guido BarbagliCenter for Reconstructive Urethra Surgery, Arezzo, Rome, Milan, Italy.
Marco BandiniCentro Chirurgico Toscano, Arezzo, Italy. bandini.marco@hsr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1462-1698
Sofia BalòCentro Chirurgico Toscano, Arezzo, Italy.
Francesco MontorsiUnit of Urology, Urological Research Institute (URI), IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele Hospital, Via Olgettina 60, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Salvatore SansaloneDepartment of Surgical Sciences, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Mauro De DominicisDepartment of Urology, Cristo Re Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Denis ButnaruInstitute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Massimo LazzeriDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Milano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe optimal harvesting site for oral grafting in patients with urethral strictures remain controversial, with no study investigating morbidity on large scale. We aimed to compare typical single cheek harvesting vs atypical lingual, labial or bilateral cheeks harvesting in terms of complications and patient-reported outcomes.

methodsWithin 827 patients treated at our referral center with oral graft urethroplasty, we compared typical vs atypical harvesting techniques. A self-administered, semiquantitative, non-validated questionnaire assessed early (10 days) and late (4 months) postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes. A semiquantitative score was calculated according to patient responses, and it was used to assess early (6 questions) and late (13 questions) patient dissatisfaction status. Patients were defined early and/or late dissatisfied when they scored ≥ 7 and ≥ 10 at the early or late questionnaires, respectively.

resultsBetween 1998 and 2019, our patients predominantly received typical single cheek harvesting (89% vs 11%), with + 1.5% increase rate per year (p < 0.001). Early and late dissatisfied patients were, respectively, 170 (23%) vs 39 (44%) and 59 (8%) vs 16 (18%) in the typical vs atypical groups. Atypical harvesting was associated with higher rates of early (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.34; 95% Confidence interval [CI] 1.44-3.75; p = 0.001) and late (OR: 2.37; 95%CI 1.22-4.42; p = 0.008) postoperative dissatisfaction.

conclusionsTypical single cheek harvesting was the preferred surgical option at our center and it was associated with negligible early and late rates of complications and patient's dissatisfaction. Conversely, atypical lingual, labial or bilateral cheeks harvesting was associated with higher complications and frequent patient dissatisfaction.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultCheekHumansLipMaleMiddle AgedMouth MucosaRetrospective StudiesTissue and Organ HarvestingTongueUrethral StrictureUrologic Surgical Procedures, MaleOral mucosa graftPatient-reported outcomesQuestionnaireUrethroplasty

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.