ArticleCureus2021
Meshed Versus Sheet Skin Graft for Scrotum and Perineal Skin Loss: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of penoscrotal hidradenitis: a narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2025Review
- Review
- Fournier's Gangrene Surgical Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Crafting Contours: A Comprehensive Guide to Scrotal Reconstruction.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background A wide array of diseases can lead to skin defects of the male genitalia. Although reconstructive options have been debated in the literature, no study has compared the effectiveness of a meshed split-thickness skin graft (STSG) and a sheet STSG in perineal and scrotal wound coverage. In this study, we report our experience in a tertiary trauma center. Methodology In this retrospective study, we included cases with a skin defect of the male genitalia, for which genital reconstruction with a skin graft was performed at our hospital from December 2017 to February 2020. This study was approved by the institutional review board. The analysis was performed at 95% confidence interval using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results A total of 27 patients were included in the study. The most common indication for genital reconstruction was Fournier's gangrene (59.3%). In 15 (55.6%) patients, a meshed skin graft was utilized to cover the defect, whereas a sheet graft was utilized in 12 (44.4%) patients. Out of the 15 patients who underwent genital reconstruction with a meshed graft, 10 (66.6%) had complete graft take. On the other hand, out of the 12 (44.4%) patients who underwent genital reconstruction using a sheet graft, five (41.6%) had complete graft take. A statistically significant relationship was found between aesthetic and functional outcomes and the type of skin graft used. The satisfaction rate was higher among meshed skin graft recipients (86.2%) compared to sheet skin graft recipients (41.7%) (p = 0.014). Conclusions Based on our observational experience, we found that meshed STSG to cover male genital skin defects is safe with satisfactory cosmetic outcomes. Further prospective randomized studies are needed.
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.