Diagnosis and evaluation of anterior and posterior urethral stenosis in men: Clinical and radiological aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diagnosis of urethral strictures logically includes a precise assessment of urinary symptoms, but must also take into account the impact on sexuality. What role will new imaging play in 2024? A literature review from December 2020 to December 2023 was carried out, combined with a synthesis of the recommendations of the American, Canadian, European and French urology associations. References from these recommendations were also used. The evaluation of urethral stenosis comprises several phases. First phase: questioning will focus on making an etiological diagnosis and establishing the impact on urinary and sexual quality of life, with the help of questionnaires. Second phase: the clinical examination should not be overlooked, as it will have a major impact on treatment proposals. Third phase: additional examinations are needed to make a positive diagnosis of the stenosis, and to assess its extent, severity and consequences. These include flowmetry/post-voiding residual (PVR), retrograde uretrography (RUG) and voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) together with fibroscopy. Today, there is a growing consensus in favor of MRI for the evaluation of posterior urethral stenosis, in particular to search for associated lesions. The evaluation of urethral strictures should focus on making a positive and etiological diagnosis. It is essential to assess the impact on voiding and sexual activity, as well as any associated lesions, which may affect management and the information given to patients. Le diagnostic des sténoses de l’urètre comprend logiquement une évaluation précise des symptômes urinaires mais devra s’attacher à évaluer le retentissement sur la sexualité. Quelle place donner aux nouvelles imageries en 2024 ? Une recherche bibliographique de la littérature de décembre 2020 à décembre 2023 a été réalisée, associée à une synthèse des recommandations des associations d’urologie américaine, canadienne, européenne et française. Les références issues de ces recommandations ont également été utilisées. L’évaluation d’une sténose de l’urètre comprend plusieurs phase. Première phase : l’interrogatoire qui s’attachera à faire le diagnostic étiologique et le retentissement sur la qualité de vie urinaire et sexuelle en s’aidant de questionnaire. Deuxième phase : l’examen clinique ne devra pas être oublié car il impactera fortement les propositions thérapeutiques. Troisième phase : la réalisation d’examen complémentaire s’attachera à faire le diagnostic positif de la sténose et à évaluer l’étendue, la sévérité et les conséquences de la sténose. On retiendra le trépieds débitmétrie/résidu post-mictionnel (RPM), l’urétrocystographie rétrograde et mictionnelle (UCRM) et la fibroscopie. La réalisation d’une IRM fait aujourd’hui de plus en plus consensus dans l’évaluation d’une sténose de l’urètre postérieur notamment pour chercher des lésions associées. L’évaluation d’une sténose de l’urètre s’attachera à faire le diagnostic positif et étiologique. Il sera indispensable d’évaluer le retentissement mictionnel et sexuel ainsi que les lésions associées qui pourront modifier la prise en charge et l’information donnée aux patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".