ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2022
Surgical interventions in female urethral strictures: a comprehensive literature review.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 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
- Comment on: Ventral onlay buccal mucosa graft urethroplasty for female urethral stricture improves female sexual functions.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Female urethral stricture disease: a narrative review on diagnosis, surgical techniques and outcomes.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Female Urethroplasty: A Critical Review of Indications, Techniques and Concerns.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Comparative Analysis of Dorsal and Ventral Onlay Urethroplasty with Buccal Mucosal Graft in Female Urethral Strictures: A Multi-Center Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Female urethral stricture: A multi-centre experience and lessons learnt.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- The Regenerative Microenvironment of the Tissue Engineering for Urethral Strictures.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2024Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisFemale urethral stricture (FUS) is an uncommon entity. Although there is no clinical consensus on the best modality of treatment, several studies have been published describing different techniques of FUS management. We carried out a literature review of the different surgical techniques used in the management of FUS and their results.
methodsWe performed a systematic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases and several cross-references. We grouped the data available from the studies into four general treatment categories.
resultsWe reported 35 studies (488 patients) with outcome measures; 53.48% of cases were presumably idiopathic in origin. A history of prior intervention was described in 91.29% of cases. As a surgical intervention, urethral dilatation (UD) had the lowest success rate of only 41.25%. In contrast, local flaps performed better (92.54% success rate) than local or oral grafts (87.30% and 89.94%, respectively). Only 9.43% of patients experienced mild to moderate post-surgery de novo incontinence; most of them recovered with pelvic floor exercises.
conclusionIn practice, UD is tried first for FUS, at least once, before urethroplasty. In case of failure or short recurrence following UD, urethroplasty should not be delayed. In experienced hands, urethroplasty has a better outcome.
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.