Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29549480›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2018

Longer length improvement and more covert incision: a single-center, prospective study of two innovative surgical methods "one stitch" and "four stitch" for pediatric buried penis.

Junhao Lei, Chunhua Luo, Songtao Cheng, Wen Yan, Xinghuan Wang, Xinjun Su

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 96% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Buried penis; what buried the penis?Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Junhao LeiDepartment of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Donghu Road #169, Wuhan, 430071, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2208-9176
Chunhua LuoDepartment of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Donghu Road #169, Wuhan, 430071, China.
Songtao ChengDepartment of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Donghu Road #169, Wuhan, 430071, China.
Wen YanDepartment of Radiology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China.
Xinghuan WangDepartment of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Donghu Road #169, Wuhan, 430071, China. wangxinghuan@whu.edu.cn.
Xinjun SuDepartment of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Donghu Road #169, Wuhan, 430071, China. 13697326659@139.com.
Wuhan University · CN

Funding

the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities 2042016kf0187the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities 2042017kf0068the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University Science, Technology and Innovation Seed fund znpy2016022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo introduce the detailed procedures of two innovative surgical options for pediatric buried penis and prospectively compare their efficacy and safety.

methodsA single-center, non-randomized, prospective study was conducted at the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, where patients were operated on using the so-called "one stitch" (OS) or "four stitch" (FS) methods. The operation time, adverse events, and satisfaction were recorded for both groups.

resultsFinally, 156 patients underwent the so-called OS (n = 65) or FS (n = 91) method, with a follow-up rate of 86.5% (135/156). During the perioperative period, the FS group spent much longer in surgery (P < 0.001), had more blood loss (P < 0.001), and took longer to recover from edema (P < 0.001) than the OS group. In contrast to the satisfaction after 12 months' follow up, both the objective length improvement (2.5 ± 0.6 vs 3.8 ± 0.5 cm, P < 0.001) and subjective satisfaction percent (86 vs 95%, P = 0.678) in the FS group were superior to those in the OS group. No significant differences were detected in postoperative infection, stenosis circle, scar hyperplasia, and relapse.

conclusionsIn conclusion, the two surgical options for pediatric buried penis are both safe and effective. The OS method has a simple procedure, so with shorter operation time and faster postoperative recovery; though the FS method with more complex procedure, patients can acquire a satisfactory improvement of penile length almost 4 cm and more covert incision at the midline of the scrotum. We primarily recommend the FS method for patients with moderate or severe buried cases; but for mild cases, we preferred the OS method.

Indexed as

Suture TechniquesChildChild, PreschoolHumansMaleMedical IllustrationOperative TimePenisPhotographyProspective StudiesScrotumTreatment OutcomeUrologic Surgical Procedures, MaleBuried penisChildrenEfficacySafetySurgery

Identifiers

PMID29549480
OpenAlexW2792887167

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.