ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Comparing the tissue properties of human buccal mucosa and penile skin flap: insights for urethral graft substitution.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the histological features, biomechanical properties, water permeability, and osmotic stress responses of human buccal mucosa and penile skin flaps to evaluate their suitability as urethral graft substitutes.
methodsBuccal mucosa (n = 53) and penile skin flap (n = 59) were prepared for histological assessment of tissue structural characteristics and vascular patterns using H&E staining and immunofluorescence. Biomechanical properties were evaluated through mechanical testing, water permeability through deuterium oxide diffusion assays, and osmotic stress responses under hypo-, iso-, and hypertonic conditions.
resultsH&E staining revealed that the buccal mucosa epithelium was significantly thicker (628.8 ± 213.3 μm) than that of the penile skin flap (148.2 ± 62.1 μm; p < 0.05). Mechanical testing demonstrated that the buccal mucosa had significantly higher elastic modulus and tensile strength and lower tensile strain compared with penile skin flap (p < 0.05). Water permeability testing revealed that the cumulative diffusion of deuterium oxide (D
conclusionThis study presents the first comprehensive comparison of the tissue properties of buccal mucosa and penile skin flaps. Our findings provide valuable insights for surgical decision-making, postoperative management, personalized treatment strategies, and the advancement of bioengineered urethral substitutes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39992424What 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.