ArticleSexual medicine2021
Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?
Article in Sexual medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Congenital penile curvature treatments in adults: a systematic review of techniques and outcomes.International journal of impotence research · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and long-term outcomes of congenital penile curvature treatment in children using tunica albuginea plication and Heinecke-Mikulicz corporoplasty.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- A scoping review on chordee correction in boys with ventral congenital penile curvature and hypospadias.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPreviously, incisionless plication (IP) for correction of congenital penile curvature (CPC) has been performed after penile degloving via a circumscribing incision.
aimTo describe our experience with non-degloving incisionless penile plication (NDIP) for correction of CPC and compare these outcomes with those of men who underwent degloving incisionless penile plication (DIP).
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of men ≤ 45 years of age who underwent incisionless penile plication for correction of CPC between 2008 and 2020 at two adult tertiary hospitals. Patients underwent either NDIP, performed through a 2-3 cm longitudinal incision along the proximal-to-mid shaft opposite the point of maximum penile curvature, or DIP via a sub-coronal circumscribing incision.
main outcome measuresSurgical and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the non-degloving and degloving groups.
resultsAmong the 38 men (mean age, 26 years) who met the inclusion criteria, 25 underwent NDIP, including 6 patients with biplanar curvature (2 Ventral, 4 Dorsal, 6 Lateral). Thirteen patients underwent DIP, including 1 patient with biplanar curvature (1 ventral, 1 lateral). Curvature reduction was 50 ± 23 degrees for the NDIP group and 36 ± 10 degrees for the DIP group (P = .04). Five (20%) patients in the NDIP group and nine (69%) patients in the DIP group experienced a reduction in stretched penile length following plication (SPL) (P = .01). One patient in the NDIP group underwent an additional plication for recurrent curvature.
conclusionBoth NDIP and DIP are safe and highly efficacious techniques for the correction of CPC. Kusin SB, Khouri RK, Dropkin BM, et al., Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?. Sex Med 2021;9:100462.
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.