ReviewArab journal of urology2025
3D-bioprinted urethral grafts: Revolutionizing urethral stricture treatment.
Review in Arab 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.
- Innovations in the management of urethral stricture disease: emerging and regenerative strategies.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Review
- Bioengineered urethral grafts for strictures: a perspective on advancements, functional restoration, and affordability.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urethral stricture disease remains a significant clinical challenge, often requiring complex surgical interventions with variable long-term success rates. Traditional approaches, including urethral dilation, endoscopic treatments, and urethroplasty using autologous grafts such as buccal mucosa, are limited by donor site morbidity, graft contraction, and suboptimal integration. Recent advancements in 3D-bioprinting have introduced a transformative alternative - bioengineered urethral grafts designed to replicate native tissue architecture and promote cellular integration. However, while these constructs aim to enhance long-term functionality, robust evidence confirming their dynamic and functional equivalence to native tissue remains limited. This review explores the latest developments in 3D-bioprinted urethral grafts, detailing bioink formulations, scaffold designs, and bioprinting techniques. Comparative analysis of conventional urethral reconstruction methods versus bioengineered grafts highlights the potential benefits of patient-specific, regenerative solutions. Additionally, we discuss preclinical and clinical progress, challenges in clinical translation, and future directions for optimizing bioprinted urethral constructs. By bridging regenerative medicine with urologic surgery, 3D-bioprinting holds the promise of revolutionizing urethral stricture treatment and improving patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.