MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417332124 · doi:10.3390/siuj6060069

Early vs. Delayed Repair in Urethral Injuries: A Systematic Review

2025· article· en· W4417332124 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kuncoro Adi, Bacilius Agung Priyosantoso

Bibliographic record

VenueSociété Internationale d’Urologie Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplicationUrethral strictureErectile dysfunctionUrethroplastyRetrospective cohort studyCohortUrinary incontinenceCohort studyMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: The optimal timing for definitive repair of urethral injuries, early versus delayed, remains a subject of ongoing debate. While delayed repair has traditionally been favored to allow resolution of local tissue trauma, emerging evidence suggests that early intervention may offer comparable or superior outcomes without increased risk of complications. This systematic review compares outcomes between early and delayed urethral repair across various patient populations and injury types. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (through June 2025) was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Comparative studies evaluating early (within initial hospitalization or ≤1 month) versus delayed (>1–3 months post-injury) urethral repair were included. Primary outcomes were urethral stricture formation, erectile dysfunction (ED), and urinary incontinence (UI). Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Of 125 records screened, four retrospective cohort studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 343 patients with anterior and posterior urethral injuries across pediatric and adult populations. Three studies found no significant difference in stricture, ED, or UI rates between early and delayed repair. One study (Chen et al., 2024) reported higher complication rates in the delayed group (stricture: 47% vs. 22%; ED: 37% vs. 3%; UI: 27% vs. 11%). Across the limited and heterogeneous studies available, no clear superiority was demonstrated between early and delayed urethral repair in terms of long-term stricture and functional outcomes. Conclusions: In carefully selected stable patients, early repair does not increase the risk of complications and may reduce catheterization time. When performed by experienced surgeons, early intervention does not increase stricture, ED, or UI risk, and may improve overall morbidity. Patient selection remains critical, but routine deferral of urethroplasty for several months should be reconsidered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociété Internationale d’Urologie JournalSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207