ArticleCurrent urology2022
Reconstruction of the male external genitalia in diverse disease processes: Our reconstructive algorithm, techniques, and experience.
Article in Current urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Male genital form and function may be rendered abnormal by a number of disease processes, with profound associated psychological and functional consequences. The aim of the study is to review our reconstructive experience with cases of genital loss or distortion due to nonmalignant diseases processes and atypical neoplasia. Materials and methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed to identify reconstructive cases performed from 2018 to 2020 under the care of a single surgeon. Male patients 18 years or older with a disease diagnosis other than squamous cell carcinoma affecting genital form were included. Disease processes, patient factors, surgical techniques, and both functional and cosmetic outcomes were reviewed. Results: Fourteen cases were identified. The patients had a mean age of 52.2 years (range, 21-72 years). Acquired buried penis was present in 8 patients. Etiology of genital abnormality included balanitis xerotica obliterans (n = 6), excess skin loss at circumcision (n = 2), self-injection of petroleum jelly to penile shaft (n = 1), Fournier gangrene (n = 1), hidradenitis suppurativa (n = 1), extramammary Paget disease (n = 1), idiopathic lymphoedema (n = 1), and penoscrotal webbing (n = 1). Reconstructive techniques performed included penile debridement/shaft skin release, scrotectomy, suprapubic apronectomy, and division of penoscrotal webbing, in combination with split-thickness skin grafting where required. A penile implant was inserted in one patient. Reconstructive planning, techniques, and outcomes are described. Conclusions: A variety of reconstructive techniques in andrology can be used to improve the aesthetic and functional outcomes of multiple disease processes affecting the male external genitalia.
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.