ArticleBJU international2026
Long-term patient-reported outcomes of open urorectal fistula repair after prostate cancer treatment.
Article in BJU international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate long-term outcomes of open urorectal fistula (URF) repair, including URF recurrence, need for re-intervention, and patient-reported outcomes. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included men undergoing open URF repair between 2014 and 2024. Data collected encompassed comorbidities, prostate cancer treatment history, prior URF interventions, and intraoperative details. Endpoints were: (i) URF recurrence-free survival, (ii) re-intervention-free survival (no further disease-related procedures), and (iii) validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Kaplan-Meier estimators were used for survival analyses; PROMs were scored according to standard protocols.
resultsA total of 29 patients underwent open URF repair. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 68 (61-71) years, body mass index was 26 (23-28) kg/m
conclusionOpen URF repair achieves durable URF closure with favourable long-term outcomes, even in complex cases. Patient satisfaction is high, while moderate urinary incontinence persists in some, likely reflecting underlying disease. Voiding and faecal continence remain largely preserved.
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.