ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Is perineal urethrostomy a last resort or a viable alternative? Comparative analysis with buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty.
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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on: "Is perineal urethrostomy a last resort or a viable alternative? Comparative analysis with buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty".World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcomes on urethroplasty's effects on ejaculatory function.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe have aimed to compare perineal urethrostomy (PU) with buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty (BMGU) performed for the management of complex anterior urethral strictures (CAUS) regarding long-term sexual and functional outcomes of the patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 109 patients who underwent PU (n = 45) or BMGU (n = 64) between January 2018 and January 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with posterior urethral strictures, those who underwent staged or different type of urethroplasty, cases that were lost to follow-up, cases followed up for less than 1 year or refused to participate were not included in the study. Turkish validated Urethral Stricture Surgery Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (USS-PROM), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and quality of life (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) questionnaires were applied to the patients to evaluate their functional and erectile functions.
resultsPatients who underwent PU were significantly older than those who underwent BMGU [median 64 (45-76) vs. 57 (44-69), respectively, p < 0.001]. Follow-up times of the two groups were similar [PU: median 39 (14-72) vs. BMGU: 42.5 (13-71), p = 0.537]. In the PU and BMGU groups, 86.7% and 89.1% of patients were very satisfied or satisfied with the operation, respectively. The median EQ-VAS score in the PU group was 85 (55-95) points. Maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) values and postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) measurements were also comparable between the groups.
conclusionsPermanent PU can be recommended for comorbid patients as a first-line treatment with resultant high success and patient satisfaction rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40618310What 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.