ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2020
Preventing the need for revision surgery after penile plication reconstruction of Peyronie's deformities.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?Sexual medicine · 2021Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe need for repeat penile plication (PP) for persistent penile deformity has previously been associated with (I) poor initial erectile response to intracavernosal injection (ICI), (II) an inadequate number of corrective sutures, and (III) a lack of sutures along the proximal shaft of the penis. We present our current experience with PP after implementing corrective measures to assess whether our need for revision surgery was reduced.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent PP for Peyronie's disease (PD) between 2009-2018 and had a minimum follow-up of 6 months. We updated our surgical technique in 2016 by (I) using supplemental intracorporal saline injections if the initial erection response to prostaglandin E1 injection was inadequate, (II) increasing numbers of corrective plication sutures, and (III) emphasizing more proximal suture placement. Patients were stratified into two groups and outcomes compared (prior technique versus current technique).
resultsOf 472 PP patients who met inclusion criteria, 340 (72%) plication patients before 2016 were compared to 132 (28%) performed after 2016. The revision rate in the current cohort (1.5%, 2/132) decreased by more than half compared to the previous cohort (3.8%, 13/340). Mean preoperative angle of curvature was similar between the two groups (50.4
conclusionsEnsuring adequate rigidity with additional ICI and focusing a greater number of corrective sutures in a more proximal location appears to help prevent the need for revision plication surgery.
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.