Outcome of urethral strictures treated by endoscopic urethrotomy and urethroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We analyze the outcomes of patients with urethral stricture who underwent surgical treatment within the past 5 years. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of male patients who underwent surgery for urethral stricture at our service from January 2008 to June 2012. We analyzed the comorbidities, type, length and location of the stricture and the surgical treatment outcome after endoscopic urethrotomy, urethroplasty or both. RESULTS: In total, 45 patients with a mean age of 53.7 ± 16.7 years underwent surgical treatment for urethral stricture. Six months after surgery, 46.7% of the patients had a maximum urinary flow greater than 15 mL/s, whereas 87.3% of the patients exhibited no stricture by urethrography after the treatment. The success rate in the patients undergoing urethrotomy was 47.8% versus 86.4% in those undergoing urethroplasty (p = 0.01). Twenty percent of the patients in whom the initial urethrotomy had failed subsequently underwent urethroplasty, thereby increasing the treatment success. CONCLUSION: In most cases, the treatment of choice for urethral stricture should be urethroplasty. Previous treatment with urethrotomy does not appear to produce adverse effects that affect the outcome of a urethroplasty if urethrotomy failed, so urethrotomy may be indicated in patients with short strictures or in patients at high surgical risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".