Deciphering the enigma of female urethral strictures: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of management modalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the management methods of female urethral stricture (FUS) and analyze the outcomes of surgical treatments. A meta-analysis was done in an attempt to identify the best approach of urethroplasty and the graft-of-choice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of Pubmed/Medline and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis statement, for articles reporting on FUS management in the last decade. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of 28 included non-randomized studies. The data on FUS management was summarized and pooled success rates (taken as symptom improvement and no need for further instrumentation) were compared. The secondary outcome was to establish a diagnostic modality of choice and define a "successful-outcome" of repair. RESULTS: The outcome was separately reported for 554 women undergoing surgical intervention for FUS in the literature. The criteria defining FUS were varied. A combination of tests was used for diagnosis as none was singularly conclusive. A total of 301 patients had previous urethral instrumentations. The pooled success rate of urethral dilatation (234 women) was 49% at a mean follow-up of 32 months; flap urethroplasty (108 cases) was 92% at a mean follow-up of 42 months; buccal mucosal graft (BMG) urethroplasty (133 cases) was 89% at a mean follow-up of 19 months; vaginal graft augmentation (44 cases) was 87% at a mean follow-up of 15 months; and labial graft reconstruction (19 cases) was 89% at a mean follow-up of 18.4 months. The dorsal approach of graft augmentation met with 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.95) success compared with 95% (95% CI 0.86-1) for the ventral approach. CONCLUSION: FUS is a rare condition requiring a meticulous diagnostic workup using multiple tests. All urethroplasties have shown better pooled success rates (86%-93%) compared with dilatation (49%). BMG is equally effective as vaginal graft urethroplasty.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".