ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2018
[Reconstructive surgery in penile cancer].
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconstructive Possibilities.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.