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.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observation on the therapeutic effect of a modified Devine procedure with subcutaneous sliding fixation method for concealed penis.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Article
- Concealed penis: A review of multilevel classification and surgical reconstruction techniques.BJUI compass · 2025Review
- Buried penis; what buried the penis?Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
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
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
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.