Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32842029›Full record

ArticleAnnals of plastic surgery2021

Uncovering the Hidden Penis: A Nomenclature and Classification System.

Ledibabari Mildred Ngaage, Joseph Lopez, Yinglun Wu, Arthur Nam, Karen Boyle, Yvonne Rasko, Nelson Goldberg

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The outcomes of surgical management options for adult acquired buried penis.International journal of impotence research · 2023
    Article
  6. Male esthetic genital surgery: recommendations and gaps to be filled.International journal of impotence research · 2022
    Article
  7. A new treatment of concealed penis: symmetrical pterygoid flap surgery.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ledibabari Mildred NgaageFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine.
Joseph Lopez
Yinglun WuFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine.
Arthur NamDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center.
Karen BoyleDepartments of Urology and Plastic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Yvonne RaskoFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine.
Nelson GoldbergFrom the Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine.
University of Maryland, Baltimore · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AbdominoplastyPenile DiseasesAdultAgedBody Mass IndexHumansMaleMiddle AgedPenisRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32842029
OpenAlexW3080270410

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.