Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Rep...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Alberto Abrate [verfasserIn] Andrea Gregori [verfasserIn] Alchiede Simonato [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2019

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Asian Journal of Urology - Elsevier, 2016, 6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:6 ; year:2019 ; number:3 ; pages:230-241

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ054634024

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ054634024
003	DE-627
005	20230308183507.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ054634024
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RC870-923
100	0		\|a Alberto Abrate \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis
264		1	\|c 2019
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty
653		0	\|a Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
700	0		\|a Andrea Gregori \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Alchiede Simonato \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Asian Journal of Urology \|d Elsevier, 2016 \|g 6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241 \|w (DE-627)833508512 \|w (DE-600)2831144-9 \|x 22143882 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:6 \|g year:2019 \|g number:3 \|g pages:230-241
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388219300013 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2214-3882 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 6 \|j 2019 \|e 3 \|h 230-241

Indexfelder

author_variant	a a aa a g ag a s as
matchkey_str	article:22143882:2019----::igamcslrfueholsy2erltrytmtc
hierarchy_sort_str	2019
callnumber-subject-code	RC
publishDate	2019
allfields	10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054634024 (DE-599)DOAJ168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC870-923 Alberto Abrate verfasserin aut Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Andrea Gregori verfasserin aut Alchiede Simonato verfasserin aut In Asian Journal of Urology Elsevier, 2016 6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241 (DE-627)833508512 (DE-600)2831144-9 22143882 nnns volume:6 year:2019 number:3 pages:230-241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c kostenfrei http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388219300013 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2214-3882 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 6 2019 3 230-241
spelling	10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054634024 (DE-599)DOAJ168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC870-923 Alberto Abrate verfasserin aut Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Andrea Gregori verfasserin aut Alchiede Simonato verfasserin aut In Asian Journal of Urology Elsevier, 2016 6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241 (DE-627)833508512 (DE-600)2831144-9 22143882 nnns volume:6 year:2019 number:3 pages:230-241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c kostenfrei http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388219300013 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2214-3882 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 6 2019 3 230-241
allfields_unstemmed	10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054634024 (DE-599)DOAJ168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC870-923 Alberto Abrate verfasserin aut Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Andrea Gregori verfasserin aut Alchiede Simonato verfasserin aut In Asian Journal of Urology Elsevier, 2016 6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241 (DE-627)833508512 (DE-600)2831144-9 22143882 nnns volume:6 year:2019 number:3 pages:230-241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c kostenfrei http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388219300013 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2214-3882 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 6 2019 3 230-241
allfieldsGer	10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054634024 (DE-599)DOAJ168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC870-923 Alberto Abrate verfasserin aut Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Andrea Gregori verfasserin aut Alchiede Simonato verfasserin aut In Asian Journal of Urology Elsevier, 2016 6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241 (DE-627)833508512 (DE-600)2831144-9 22143882 nnns volume:6 year:2019 number:3 pages:230-241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c kostenfrei http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388219300013 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2214-3882 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 6 2019 3 230-241
allfieldsSound	10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054634024 (DE-599)DOAJ168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RC870-923 Alberto Abrate verfasserin aut Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Andrea Gregori verfasserin aut Alchiede Simonato verfasserin aut In Asian Journal of Urology Elsevier, 2016 6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241 (DE-627)833508512 (DE-600)2831144-9 22143882 nnns volume:6 year:2019 number:3 pages:230-241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c kostenfrei http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388219300013 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2214-3882 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 6 2019 3 230-241
language	English
source	In Asian Journal of Urology 6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241 volume:6 year:2019 number:3 pages:230-241
sourceStr	In Asian Journal of Urology 6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241 volume:6 year:2019 number:3 pages:230-241
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Asian Journal of Urology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Alberto Abrate @@aut@@ Andrea Gregori @@aut@@ Alchiede Simonato @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2019-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	833508512
id	DOAJ054634024
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ054634024</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308183507.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ054634024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC870-923</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alberto Abrate</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Andrea Gregori</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alchiede Simonato</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Asian Journal of Urology</subfield><subfield code="d">Elsevier, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)833508512</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2831144-9</subfield><subfield code="x">22143882</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:6</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:230-241</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388219300013</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2214-3882</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">6</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">230-241</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Alberto Abrate
spellingShingle	Alberto Abrate misc RC870-923 misc Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis
authorStr	Alberto Abrate
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)833508512
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RC870-923
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	22143882
topic_title	RC870-923 Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis
topic	misc RC870-923 misc Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
topic_unstemmed	misc RC870-923 misc Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
topic_browse	misc RC870-923 misc Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Asian Journal of Urology
hierarchy_parent_id	833508512
hierarchy_top_title	Asian Journal of Urology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)833508512 (DE-600)2831144-9
title	Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ054634024 (DE-599)DOAJ168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c
title_full	Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis
author_sort	Alberto Abrate
journal	Asian Journal of Urology
journalStr	Asian Journal of Urology
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2019
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	230
author_browse	Alberto Abrate Andrea Gregori Alchiede Simonato
container_volume	6
class	RC870-923
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Alberto Abrate
doi_str_mv	10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: systematic review and meta-analysis
callnumber	RC870-923
title_auth	Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis
abstract	Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty
abstractGer	Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty
abstract_unstemmed	Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	3
title_short	Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis
url	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001 https://doaj.org/article/168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388219300013 https://doaj.org/toc/2214-3882
remote_bool	true
author2	Andrea Gregori Alchiede Simonato
author2Str	Andrea Gregori Alchiede Simonato
ppnlink	833508512
callnumber-subject	RC - Internal Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001
callnumber-a	RC870-923
up_date	2024-07-03T23:59:31.863Z
_version_	1803604377593708544
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ054634024</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308183507.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2019 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ054634024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC870-923</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alberto Abrate</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objective: To evaluate the functional results and complications of the lingual mucosal graft (LMG) urethroplasty and to sum up the current state of the art of this surgical technique. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus electronic databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies involving male patients treated with LMG urethroplasty for urethral stricture were included. Complete protocol is available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080121. A meta-analysis comparing functional and long-term oral complication outcomes of LMG and buccal mucosal graft (BMG) was performed, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Twenty original articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Strictures of 1.5–16.5 cm have been treated with LMG urethroplasty, due to the improvement of harvesting technique and very low rate of long-term oral complications. Very good functional results have been reported by different authors for LMG urethroplasty, with lower rate of oral complications than BMG. The meta-analysis included six comparative studies involving 187 and 178 patients treated with LMG and BMG urethroplasty, respectively. An OR of 1.65 (95% CI [0.95–2.87], I2 = 0%) and 0.18 (95% CI [0.03–1.26], I2 = 68%) were found for LMG vs. BMG urethroplasty, in terms of success and oral complication rate, respectively. Conclusion: LMG urethroplasty can be reasonably considered a first choice technique for urethral stricture with very good results. Oral complications are temporary and minimally disabling, basically less than those for BMG, and depend mainly on the graft extent. Keywords: Lingual mucosal graft, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Urethral stricture, Urethroplasty</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Andrea Gregori</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alchiede Simonato</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Asian Journal of Urology</subfield><subfield code="d">Elsevier, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">6(2019), 3, Seite 230-241</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)833508512</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2831144-9</subfield><subfield code="x">22143882</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:6</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:230-241</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2019.01.001</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/168326b7b2a245ca82bf13c5e43c480c</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388219300013</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2214-3882</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">6</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">230-241</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4021063

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Lingual mucosal graft urethroplasty 12 years later: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?