English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

With an estimated prevalence of 296 to 627 per 100.000 men, male urethral stricture disease imposes a significant burden on the health care system (1, 2). Urethroplasty has demonstrated durable, high success rates in the management of a wide spectrum of stricture disease, far exceeding that of the more commonly performed but less successful direct vision internal urethrotomy (DVIU) (1, 3-5). While procedure selection depends on stricture characteristics (length, location, and etiology), the high success rate of excision and primary anastomotic (EPA) urethroplasty makes it the procedure of choice for most strictures of the bulbar urethra (6). However, concerns regarding the effect of urethral transection on male sexual health has led some centers to advocate for substitution urethroplasty (7), likely contributing to an increase in these procedures (8). Our objective is to review the literature supporting EPA urethroplasty in strictures of the bulbar urethra.

The case for excision and primary anastomotic urethroplasty for bulbar urethral stricture