Low risk of erectile dysfunction after nontransecting bulbar urethroplasty for urethral stricture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual function after urethroplasty may be a concern for patients, but there are still some controversies regarding the consequences of nontransecting bulbar urethroplasty (ntBU) in terms of erectile dysfunction (ED). AIM: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ntBU with that of transecting bulbar urethroplasty (tBU). METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched and reviewed up to October 31, 2022. Quality evaluation was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale system and Cochrane tools for the nonrandomized and randomized studies, respectively. Baseline characteristics, preoperative information, and postoperative outcomes were collected. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included success rate, ED, overall complication, and maximum urinary flow. RESULTS: Thirteen studies comprising 1683 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 596 and 1087 patients undergoing ntBU and tBU, respectively. The results revealed that compared with the tBU group, the patients who underwent ntBU had a significantly lower incidence of ED, while there were no significant differences in the other perioperative outcomes. In subgroup analysis, the nontransecting anastomotic urethroplasty group had a lower incidence of ED than excision and primary anastomosis, and other perioperative outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results of the study may help clinicians choose procedures that protect sexual function in the treatment of urethral stricture. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The strength of this study is that it is, to our knowledge, the first meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ntBU. A limitation is that most of the included studies were retrospective cohort studies. CONCLUSION: ntBU preserves the high efficacy of its transecting counterpart while reducing postoperative ED.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".