ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016
[Reconstructive methods after Fournier gangrene].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A different perspective for morbidity related to Fournier's gangrene: which scoring system is more reliable to predict requirement of skin graft and flaps in survivors of Fournier's gangrene?International urology and nephrology · 2019Article
- A contemporary case series of Fournier's gangrene at a Swiss tertiary care center-can scoring systems accurately predict mortality and morbidity?World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2018Article
- Complete penile skin necrosis.Turkish journal of urology · 2017Article
- [Plastic reconstruction of external genitalia after Fournier's gangrene].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFournier's gangrene is a variant of the necrotizing fasciitis restricted to the perineal and genital region. It presents as an acute life-threatening disease and demands rapid surgical debridement, resulting in large soft tissue defects. Various reconstructive methods have to be applied to reconstitute functionality and aesthetics. The objective of this work is to identify different reconstructive methods in the literature and compare them to our current concepts for reconstructing defects caused by Fournier gangrene.
methodsAnalysis of the current literature and our reconstructive methods on Fournier gangrene.
resultsThe Fournier gangrene is an emergency requiring rapid, calculated antibiotic treatment and radical surgical debridement. After the acute phase of the disease, appropriate reconstructive methods are indicated. The planning of the reconstruction of the defect depends on many factors, especially functional and aesthetic demands. Scrotal reconstruction requires a higher aesthetic and functional reconstructive degree than perineal cutaneous wounds. In general, thorough wound hygiene, proper pre-operative planning, and careful consideration of the patient's demands are essential for successful reconstruction.
conclusionsIn the literature, various methods for reconstruction after Fournier gangrene are described. Reconstruction with a flap is required for a good functional result in complex regions as the scrotum and penis, while cutaneous wounds can be managed through skin grafting. Patient compliance and tissue demand are crucial factors in the decision-making process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.