Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42165905›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026

Effectiveness of contemporary treatments for iatrogenic urethral strictures following endoscopic management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a comprehensive review.

Mattia Lo Re, Anna Cadenar, Marta Pezzoli, Elettra Fuligni, Behzad Abbasi, Łukasz Białek, Francesco Chierigo, Mikołaj Frankiewicz, Leonidas Karapanos, Jakob Klemm and 12 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

22 authors.

Mattia Lo ReDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. Mattia.lore@unifi.it.
Anna CadenarDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Marta PezzoliDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Elettra FuligniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Behzad AbbasiDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Łukasz BiałekDepartment of Urology, Centre for Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Francesco ChierigoDepartment of Urology, Department of Health Science, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Mikołaj FrankiewiczDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland.
Leonidas KarapanosDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Leverkusen, Leverkusen, Germany.
Jakob KlemmDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Guglielmo ManticaDepartment of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Paul NeuvilleDepartment of Urology, Hospital Lyon Sud, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Bruno BuccaDepartment of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Maciej OszczudłowskiDepartment of Urology, Centre for Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Elaine RedmondDepartment of Urology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Jordán ScherñukDepartment of Urology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Juan Diego TinajeroChelsea Centre for Gender Surgery, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, NHS Trust, London, UK.
Wesley VerlaDepartment of Urology, AZ Maria Middelares, Ghent, Belgium.
Andrea MinerviniUnit of Urology and Andrology, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, 50100, Florence, Italy.
Malte W VetterleinDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Andrea CocciUnit of Urology and Andrology, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, 50100, Florence, Italy.
Trauma and Reconstructive Urology Working Party of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIatrogenic urethral strictures represent a relevant complication following endoscopic surgical treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia, potentially leading to significant morbidity and impaired quality of life. Despite advances in endoscopic technologies, urethral trauma related to prolonged operative time and large-caliber instruments remains a concern. The optimal management of urethral strictures secondary to surgery is still debated, and high-quality evidence comparing endoscopic and open reconstructive approaches is lacking. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of contemporary treatments for iatrogenic urethral strictures following endoscopic management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024604611). MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2000 to June 2025. Studies reporting outcomes of endoscopic or open surgical treatments for urethral strictures following benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery were included. Data extraction focused on patient characteristics, stricture features, treatment modality, success rates, complications, and follow-up. Due to substantial heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not performed.

resultsEleven studies comprising a total of 610 patients were included. Of these, 443 (73%) patients underwent primary treatment for urethral stricture, while 167 (27%) were treated for recurrent disease. The bulbar and membranous urethra were the most commonly involved sites. Overall, 58 patients (9%) underwent endoscopic management, whereas 552 patients (91%) were treated with open reconstructive surgery. The overall recurrence rate was 8 and 10% for both endoscopic and open approaches. However, follow-up duration differed substantially between groups, ranging from 12 to 24 months in endoscopic series and extending up to 54 months in open reconstructive cohorts. Complication rates were generally low. No perioperative or functional complications were reported following endoscopic treatments. Among open procedures, urinary incontinence was the most frequent complication, with rates varying from 4% after ventral onlay graft urethroplasty to 15% following intrasphincteric bulbo-prostatic anastomosis. Flap-related complications were rare.

conclusionManagement of urethral strictures following endoscopic prostatic surgery remains challenging. While endoscopic treatments offer acceptable short-term outcomes with minimal morbidity, open reconstructive surgery provides more durable long-term results at the cost of a higher, yet acceptable, risk of functional complications. Treatment choice should be individualized based on stricture characteristics, patient factors, and surgical expertise. Prospective, multicenter studies with standardized outcome reporting and longer follow-up are warranted to optimize treatment algorithms for this complex condition.

Indexed as

EndoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsProstatic HyperplasiaUrethral StrictureHumansIatrogenic DiseaseMaleTreatment OutcomeBPHTransurethral surgeryUrethral strictureUrethroplasty

Identifiers

PMID42165905
PMCPMC13194237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.