ArticleBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences2019
[Complications and management for penile augmentation with acellular dermal matrix].
Article in Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decellularized Extracellular Matrix Scaffolds for Soft Tissue Augmentation: From Host-Scaffold Interactions to Bottlenecks in Clinical Translation.Biomaterials research · 2024Review
- Clinical applications of acellular dermal matrices: A review.Scars, burns & healingReview
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate and analyze the complications of penile augmentation with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and following management.
methodsThis was a retrospective review of all patients who received penile augmentation with ADM between June 2016 and January 2019. The patients were evaluated with outpatient physical examination. Related complications and following management were summarized and analyzed.
resultsBetween June 2016 and January 2019, ADM was used as filling material on 78 patients (mean age: 31.14 years, range: 21-66 years), who were successfully received penile augmentation surgery. In the follow-up three months, the penile circumference was increased by 1.1 cm (0.5-2.1 cm) on average. The mean follow-up time was 12.20 months. In this study, there were 47 (60.26%, 47/78) patients with erectile discomfort, 91.49% (43/47) of whom manifested as erectile traction. There were 12 (15.38%, 12/78) patients with delayed healing, improved by daily regular dressing change. There were 10 (12.82%, 10/78) patients with unobvious augmentation effect. There were 9 (11.54%, 9/78) patients with stamp-like changes of ADM. There were 8 (10.26%, 8/78) patients with wound hematoma and 7 (8.97%, 7/78) patients with foreskin edema, relieved by compression with wrap. There were 4 (5.13%, 4/78) patients with wound infection and 3 (3.85%, 3/78) patients with skin necrosis of the dorsal side, which could be treated with ADM removal and repair surgery with bipedicle scrotal flap. And there were 2 (2.56%, 2/78) patients suffering psychological influence. Finally, most patients with various complications recovered successfully, however 7 patients (8.97%, 7/78) underwent ADM removal surgery.
conclusionUsing ADM as filling material could achieve positive effect in penile augmentation but the complications are common and cannot be neglected. Standardized surgical methods, rigorous postoperative care, and adequate notification with patients can effectively reduce the complications of penile augmentation with ADM. To treat properly and timely for complications can obtain satisfactory results.
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.