ArticleAmerican journal of clinical and experimental urology2024
Follow-up and histocompatibility observation of urethral reconstruction with different materials.
Article in American journal of clinical and experimental urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur objective is to observe the long-term surgical results of urethral reconstruction using either pedicled penile flaps or lingual mucosa grafts. We also assess the histocompatibility of the reconstructed urethra. MATERIALS AND
methodsClinical data of patients with anterior urethral stenosis undergoing urethra reconstruction by applying different materials were collected from 2014 to 2022 in the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University. We assessed their efficacy and the occurrence of complications. Patients who required reoperation due to complications were selected. Sections of the reconstructed urethra created with various materials were excised during repair procedures. The excised tissues underwent hematoxylin-eosin staining and immunohistochemistry. Comparison with the original histological morphology was conducted to evaluate histocompatibility.
results42 of the 55 patients were cured which showed a surgical success rate of 76.36%. The success rate of urethra reconstruction surgery utilizing lingual mucosa is 71.43% and that of surgeries using pedicled penis flaps is 79.41%. The long-term prognosis of the two groups is similar (P > 0.05). Observations show that the histological morphology of the original epithelium gradually disappeared, leading to adaptive changes to the urinary environment with favorable histocompatibility.
conclusionThe application of lingual mucosal and pedicled penis flaps for urethral reconstruction both have a high surgical success rate. The long-term follow-up results are positive. Both methods are viable for urethral reconstruction and exhibit favorable histocompatibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38500866PMC10944369W4394738721What 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.