ArticleAnnals of plastic surgery2021
Uncovering the Hidden Penis: A Nomenclature and Classification System.
Article in Annals of plastic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of adult acquired buried penis (AABP) reconstruction: a multicentre cohort study.International journal of impotence research · 2026Observational
- Surgical technique experience and results for concealed penis.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
- A comparative study of the clinical efficacy and quality of life of modified Brisson surgery vs traditional Devine surgery in the treatment of concealed penis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- The Outcomes of Adult Acquired Buried Penis Surgical Reconstruction.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The outcomes of surgical management options for adult acquired buried penis.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Male esthetic genital surgery: recommendations and gaps to be filled.International journal of impotence research · 2022Article
- A new treatment of concealed penis: symmetrical pterygoid flap surgery.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA hidden penis can interfere with normal hygiene, prevent effective voiding, restrict sexual activity, and cause great embarrassment to the patient. The terms "hidden," "buried," and "trapped" penis are used interchangeably. To date, there is no classification system that adequately characterizes the spectrum of this condition. In this study, we propose a simplified nomenclature and classification system for adult-acquired hidden penis.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of all adult patients treated surgically for hidden penis by the senior author from 2009 to 2019. Patients were classified into either "buried" or "trapped" categories. A "buried" penis was defined as a hidden penis concealed by suprapubic fat without fibrous tethering. These patients were managed with panniculectomy, monsplasty, or both. In contrast, those with a "trapped" penis presented with scarred or fibrous tissue, which required surgical lysis, phalloplasty, and penile skin resurfacing.
resultsThirteen patients met the inclusion criteria. The cohort was aged 53 ± 15.7 years with a mean body mass index of 37.4 ± 4.3 kg/m2. Two patients required repeat operations, yielding a total of 15 operative encounters. Six were defined as buried, and 9 as trapped. Inability to achieve erection was the most common preoperative complaint in those with buried penis (67%), whereas difficulties in voiding were most common with trapped penis (78%). Patients with trapped penises had a significantly larger body habitus than those with a buried penis (39.8 vs 34.2 kg/m2, P = 0.0088). Operative duration and length of hospital stay were comparable between the trapped and buried penis groups (206 vs 161 minutes, P = 0.3664) (5 vs 1 day, P = 0.0836). One third experienced wound complications, but this was not significantly different between buried and trapped penises (17% vs 44%, P = 0.5804). Postoperatively, 5 patients experienced spontaneous erections, and 7 were able to void while standing.
conclusionsPatients with a trapped penis present with a different preoperative symptom profile and body type than those with a buried penis. Our nomenclature and classification system offer a simple and clear algorithm for the management of hidden penis. Large cohort studies are warranted to assess differences in clinical outcomes between trapped and buried penises.
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.