ArticleThe Canadian journal of urology2026
Comparison of endoscopic treatment for bladder neck contracture: a single centre study and review of literature.
Article in The Canadian 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNowadays, bladder neck contracture treatment reported is both bladder neck incisions and resection. Also, different energies have been described. This study aimed to describe and compare surgical techniques and energy sources used in Hospital Universitari de Vic.
methodsretrospective study of patients with a diagnosis of bladder neck contracture that required endoscopic surgical treatment between 2000 and 2024. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative characteristics were analysed. At the end of follow-up, the patient's status was asymptomatic, under urethral dilatations, or with a permanent catheter.
results60 patients were included. Mean age was 71.1 years (SD = 8.95). Previous urologic surgery was open radical prostatectomy (33.3%), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (6.7%), transurethral resection of the prostate (31.7%), laser prostate vaporization (16.7%), open prostate adenomectomy (6.7%), and transurethral resection of bladder tumour (5.0%). Concomitant urethral stricture was detected in 21.3%. Bladder neck resection was used in 41.7% and bladder neck incisions at 12, 5, and 7 h in 58.3%. No significant difference in success rate was detected (p = 0.598). The instrument was monopolar loop (31.7%), Collins (41.7%), cold knife (11.7%), bipolar loop (8.3%), and Holmium laser (6.7%). In 13 patients, a second endoscopic management was performed, and 9 presented success. Median time follow-up was 63 months (IQR: 25-100). Patient's clinical situation was asymptomatic in 71.1%, periodic dilatations in 25% and a permanent catheter in 3.3%. The only risk factor detected for periodic dilatations was urethral stenosis.
conclusionsEndoscopic treatment presents a success rate of 71% at 5 years with no significant difference between bladder neck incisions or resection, nor between previous types of prostate surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42415574What 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.