ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Role of Perineal Urethrostomy in Reconstructive Urology.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perineal urethrostomy (PU) involves the creation of a urethral meatus at the perineal level. Traditionally, it was regarded as a last-resort therapeutic option or the outcome of failed previous reconstructive attempts. Currently, this perspective has evolved, and PU is increasingly considered a primary indication in complex cases or in patients with significant comorbidities. PU can be performed either as a definitive procedure-in patients with extensive, recurrent strictures or in those with comorbidities that preclude formal reconstruction-or as a temporary measure to facilitate healing and optimize conditions prior to definitive reconstructive surgery. In oncologic cases associated with total penectomy, PU serves as the definitive form of urinary diversion, and the same reconstructive principles should be applied to its design. A key requirement for PU is preserved sphincteric continence and the absence of proximal urethral stenosis. Advances in surgical techniques, including the use of flap mobilization and grafting, have enabled the creation of wide, functional meatuses, reducing the rate of stricture recurrence. Additionally, non-transecting variants aim to preserve the vascularization of the dorsal urethral surface. Following these surgical principles, high success rates can be achieved. Despite representing a significant alteration of anatomy and voiding habits, patient satisfaction is generally high. PU should not be viewed merely as a palliative alternative but rather as a versatile reconstructive option capable of providing comfortable and durable voiding in selected patients. Appropriate patient selection and meticulous surgical execution remain essential pillars of contemporary urethral surgery.
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.