Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40949453›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2025

Transurethral ventral buccal mucosal inlay grafting: a narrative review.

Benjamin Cedars, Dmitriy Nikolavsky

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Benjamin CedarsDepartment of Urology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Dmitriy NikolavskyDepartment of Urology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Urethral strictures involving the meatus and fossa navicularis (FN) account for up to 18% of cases, presenting unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. This review explores the history and current management strategies, including minimally invasive endoscopic techniques and reconstructive options such as flap and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) urethroplasty. Open urethroplasty remains the gold standard, particularly for complex cases, but it carries undesirable risks such as dehiscence and fistula formation. We will review transurethral approaches to avoid these risks and provide a step-by-step explanation for the ventral inlay BMG FN urethroplasty. Methods: A focused review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database with the following search terms: "transurethral", "transmeatal", "urethroplasty", and "fossa navicularis". English language articles were included, and detailed review was carried out to select the relevant articles. Key Content and Findings: Recent advancements include transurethral approaches that minimize external incisions and associated complications, demonstrating high success rates while preserving functional and aesthetic outcomes. Key elements of the procedure include ventral scar tissue resection, harvest of a tear-shaped BMG, and use of double-armed sutures to allow for external knot tying. Conclusions: This review highlights the importance of refining and innovating techniques to optimize patient outcomes in managing FN strictures, most recently via transurethral augmentation with BMG.

Indexed as

buccal mucosal graft (BMG)fossa navicularis (FN)Transurethral surgeryurethroplasty

Identifiers

PMID40949453
PMCPMC12433170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.