World journal of urology · 2022
Comparative review of the guidelines for anterior urethral stricture.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abbasi Behzad, Shaw Nathan M, Lui Jason L, Li Kevin D, Low Patrick, Hakam Nizar, Nabavizadeh Behnam, Breyer Benjamin N
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We aimed to provide a detailed comparison between the American Urologic Association (AUA), Société Internationale d'Urologie (SIU), and the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on the evaluation, management, and follow-up of the patients with anterior urethral stricture disease (USD).
METHODS: The urethral stricture guidelines from SUI, AUA, and EAU were collected and evaluated regarding the recommendations on diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of anterior USD. The strength of evidence for each statement was included and discussed when guidelines differed.
RESULTS: While the guidelines remarkably align in terms of the diagnostic workup and follow-up, there is discordance in the management of anterior urethral strictures, specifically for the use of endoscopic treatment and stenting. Further, the EAU offers more comprehensive recommendations regarding urethroplasty techniques and patient follow-up. The EAU guidelines are the most recent and first to offer guidance for USD in transgender people and women.
CONCLUSION: Reconstructive urology is a rapidly adapting field, and best practices change accordingly. Guideline statements have become more inclusive and expansive but will require further research to improve the level of evidence and continue to provide patients and providers with the best treatment plans.
METHODS: The urethral stricture guidelines from SUI, AUA, and EAU were collected and evaluated regarding the recommendations on diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of anterior USD. The strength of evidence for each statement was included and discussed when guidelines differed.
RESULTS: While the guidelines remarkably align in terms of the diagnostic workup and follow-up, there is discordance in the management of anterior urethral strictures, specifically for the use of endoscopic treatment and stenting. Further, the EAU offers more comprehensive recommendations regarding urethroplasty techniques and patient follow-up. The EAU guidelines are the most recent and first to offer guidance for USD in transgender people and women.
CONCLUSION: Reconstructive urology is a rapidly adapting field, and best practices change accordingly. Guideline statements have become more inclusive and expansive but will require further research to improve the level of evidence and continue to provide patients and providers with the best treatment plans.