Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36983427›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Management of Pelvic Fracture Urethral Injury: Is Supracrural Urethral Rerouting (Step 4) Becoming Anecdotical or Does It Remain in Force?

Christian Yepes, Maciej Oszczudlowski, Marco Bandini, Pankaj M Joshi, Ahmed Alrefaey, Shreyas Bhadranavar, Francisco E Martins, Sanjay B Kulkarni

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Management of pelvic fracture urethral injury.Translational andrology and urology · 2025
    Review
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 at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Christian YepesDepartment of Urology, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune 411045, India.
Maciej OszczudlowskiUrology Clinic, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, 01-813 Warsaw, Poland.
Marco BandiniUnit of Urology, Urological Research Institute (URI), Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, San Raffaele Hospital, 20132 Milano, Italy.
Pankaj M JoshiDepartment of Urology, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune 411045, India.
Ahmed AlrefaeyDepartment of Urology, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune 411045, India.
Shreyas BhadranavarDepartment of Urology, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune 411045, India.
Francisco E MartinsDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Hospital Santa Maria, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5718-6964
Sanjay B KulkarniDepartment of Urology, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune 411045, India.
Kulkarni reconstructive Urology Center · INPostgraduate School of Molecular Medicine · PLUniversity of Lisbon · PTVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Webster described a step-based perineal approach for repairing the posterior urethra in patients with pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI). The higher the complexity of the step, the higher the morbidity for the patient and the lower the surgical outcomes. We evaluated the outcomes of anastomotic urethroplasty (especially Step 4 or higher) or substitution urethroplasty in patients with PFUI at our center. Between 2013 to 2021, we retrospectively collected data on patients with PFUI. Surgical procedures were categorized according to the Webster classification and rates of each step were reported. The success rate was defined as Qmax above 10 mL/s and no need for further treatment. In this period, 737 male patients with PFUI were surgically treated. Notably, 18.8%, 17.6%, 46%, 1.8%, and 5.6% of included patients received steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the abdominoperineal approach, respectively. In 68 (9.2%) patients, the substitution of urethroplasty with a pedicled preputial tube (PPT) was needed. The success rate was 69.2% in Step 4, 74.4% in the abdominoperineal approach, and 86.4% in PPT; however, recurrence-free survival was not significantly different between groups (

Indexed as

anastomotic urethroplastypelvic fracture urethral injuryperineal approachposterior urethrasupracrural urethral reroutingtranspubic approach

Identifiers

PMID36983427
PMCPMC10058563
OpenAlexW4353090638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.