Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36381591›Full record

ReviewAsian journal of urology2022

Phalloplasty following penectomy for penile cancer.

Wai Gin Lee, A Nim Christopher, David J Ralph

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Asian journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Penile cancer treatment and sexuality: a narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2025
    Review
  5. "Sexuality in penile cancer: lessons learned and the road ahead".International journal of impotence research · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Epidemiological study of penile cancer in a northeastern state - Brazil.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wai Gin LeeUniversity College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
A Nim ChristopherUniversity College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
David J RalphUniversity College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
University College Hospital · GBSt Peter's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Penile reconstruction or phalloplasty following penectomy can be offered where the functional penile length is inadequate for a man to void while standing or to have sexual intercourse. Phalloplasty is usually staged due to the complex surgical techniques required. This narrative review describes the technical concepts and summarises the contemporary outcomes following phalloplasty in this challenging cohort. Methods: A retrospective review of the English literature was performed between January 1946 till November 2021. The data were synthesised and complemented by the expert opinion of the authors with 20 years of experience in this field. The flaps are ideally designed with an integrated urethra or alternatively, a further free flap urethroplasty can be offered. Phalloplasty is further complicated following penectomy by scarring from the previous surgery and the potential loss of structures that would normally be present at the recipient site. Results: There are limited published data with a total of 19 men recorded in the literature. Only the radial artery forearm free flap and anterolateral thigh flap have been described in this cohort of patients. Functional outcomes including standing micturition, sensation in the neophallus, and the ability to orgasm are good. Overall quality of life and satisfaction was also good despite the high risk for long-term complications of the neophallus and donor site. Conclusion: Phalloplasty following penectomy requires microsurgical transfer of a free flap or a pedicled flap to reconstruct a neophallus. An erectile device is inserted at a later stage to facilitate sexual intercourse, if desired. Surgical scarring from penectomy and the potential loss of vasculature that would normally be present at the recipient site may further complicate reconstruction. Surgical and functional outcomes are acceptable based on the limited published experience to date.

Indexed as

HumansMaleMyocutaneous flap or transplantationPenis or surgeryPhalloplastyReconstructive surgical proceduresRetrospective studySurgical flapThigh or surgeryTreatment outcomeUrethra or surgery

Identifiers

PMID36381591
PMCPMC9643302
OpenAlexW4289639887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.