Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41230166›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2025

Management of pelvic fracture urethral injury.

Pankaj Mangalkumar Joshi, Meritxell Costa-Grau, Pawan Kandhari, Saurabh Mahesh Thakkar, Emmanuel Ugbede Oyibo, Jimena Navarro, Sanjay Balwant Kulkarni

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

7 authors.

Pankaj Mangalkumar JoshiUrokul Institute, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune, India.
Meritxell Costa-GrauUrokul Institute, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5422-4057
Pawan KandhariUrokul Institute, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune, India.
Saurabh Mahesh ThakkarUrokul Institute, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune, India.
Emmanuel Ugbede OyiboUrokul Institute, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4470-2587
Jimena NavarroUrokul Institute, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune, India.
Sanjay Balwant KulkarniUrokul Institute, Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI) represents one of the most challenging entities in reconstructive urology. It predominantly affects the bulbomembranous junction because of its anatomical vulnerability to shearing and compression forces during pelvic trauma. These injuries often result from high-energy accidents, with associated pelvic instability and concomitant injuries, and frequently necessitate a multidisciplinary initial approach. Early management typically involves prompt suprapubic cystostomy (SPC) to divert urine, prevent further contamination, and allow stabilization of the patient. Delayed urethroplasty (DU) remaining the gold standard for definitive repair once the acute phase has resolved. Delayed repair most commonly consists of a perineal bulbomembranous anastomosis (BMA), a technique that has been extensively described and refined over decades, providing a tension-free anastomosis with consistently high success rates. In severe cases, however, where there is significant pelvic disruption, extensive urethral gaps, or difficult access due to scarring, an abdominoperineal approach may be required to achieve adequate exposure, mobilization, and excision of scar tissue. Complex PFUI scenarios, defined by dense periurethral fibrosis, long-segment defects, associated fistulae, or concomitant bladder neck injury, demand more advanced reconstructive strategies and are associated with lower success rates compared with primary BMA. Redo urethroplasty represents an even greater challenge due to altered anatomy, impaired vascularity, and a lack of healthy tissue available for mobilization. Common factors contributing to surgical failure include inadequate excision of fibrotic tissue, insufficient mobilization of the bulbar urethra, and poor tissue quality at the anastomotic site. When bulbar urethral necrosis (BUN) occurs or when the urethral gap cannot be bridged primarily, substitution techniques become necessary. Among these, the pedicled preputial tube has emerged as one of the most widely described and effective options, offering a robust vascularized tissue for reconstruction and demonstrating favorable long-term outcomes. Successful PFUI management therefore relies on individualized planning that integrates detailed preoperative imaging and refined surgical techniques tailored to the specific extent and complexity of the injury.

Indexed as

anastomotic urethroplastycomplex PFUIPelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI)

Identifiers

PMID41230166
PMCPMC12603872

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.