Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29536118›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2018

[Reconstructive surgery in penile cancer].

M Sohn, M Dietrich, A Wirthmann, U M Rieger

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reconstructive Possibilities.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M SohnKlinik für Urologie, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Wilhelm-Epstein-Straße 4, 60431, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland. urologie.mk@fdk.info.
M DietrichKlinik für Urologie, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Wilhelm-Epstein-Straße 4, 60431, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
A WirthmannWiederherstellungs- und Handchirurgie, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
U M RiegerWiederherstellungs- und Handchirurgie, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
Agaplesion Markus Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to the rising incidence of penile cancer and increasing life expectancy in western nations, the current international guidelines recommend a less aggressive surgical approach with reduced safety margins and preferably with organ preservation.

objectivesThe goal of this review is to review the current data on stage-dependent reconstructive surgical techniques and their oncological and functional results. MATERIALS AND

methodsFive recently published reviews and several single studies and publications on the topic of organ-sparing surgical techniques and penile reconstruction were evaluated to draw conclusions for surgery in penile cancer.

resultsDue to the rare incidence of penile cancer and the absence of comparative, prospective studies in the literature, evidence levels of the actual statements and conclusions are low.

conclusionsOrgan-sparing techniques in penile cancer lead to slightly elevated local recurrence rates compared with traditional partial or total penile amputation. Thus, sufficient patient compliance is mandatory and an intensified follow-up for more than the usual 5 years postoperatively is required. On the other hand, these techniques enable the surgeon to offer improved functional and esthetic outcomes to the patient, maintaining erectile capacity and sensitivity. After extended partial or total penile amputation, penile reconstruction using free radial forearm flaps with later prosthetic implantation may be offered to younger and sexually active patients in cooperation with experienced plastic surgeons, even if the previously published case numbers do not permit standardization of these procedures.

Indexed as

EstheticsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMaleMargins of ExcisionNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPenile NeoplasmsPlastic Surgery ProceduresSurgical FlapsCarcinoma in situExcision, localGlansOrgan preservation surgeryPenile prosthesisRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID29536118
OpenAlexW2789820273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.