Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Therapeutic adjuncts in the endoscopic management of urethral stricture disease: past, present, and future

Singh J.

Narrative Review, published in Front Urol (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Front Urol (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
40777099
PMCID
PMC12327319
DOI
10.3389/fruro.2024.1342941

Abstract (original English)

Urethral stricture disease is a recurrent and debilitating condition affecting many men of all ages. Management may involve endoscopic or surgical treatment. Surgical urethral reconstruction remains the gold standard treatment and is associated with higher success rates in terms of stricture recurrence free-survival. However, urethroplasty is not available to patients with significant medical comorbidities, or those wishing to forego invasive surgery. Endoscopic treatment is aimed at improving lower urinary tract symptoms and relieving obstruction while maximizing time to stricture recurrence with the aid of therapeutic adjuncts. The aim of this review is to discuss the mechanism of action and role of therapeutic adjuncts and highlight some of the lesser-known adjuncts that have been utilized with success in this space.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.