ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2025
Comparative outcomes of partial versus total penectomy for penile carcinoma: A retrospective cohort study on demographics and postoperative complications.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2025. 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.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When feasible from an oncologic standpoint, partial penectomy (PP) is often preferred to total penectomy (TP) for penile cancer treatment, for the preservation of functional urinary outcomes. However, to date, there has not been a direct comparison of perioperative outcomes between PP and TP. Comparing treatments for penile cancer has proven difficult due to the rarity of penile cancer in the United States. We aimed to report differences in pre-operative risk factors, intra-operative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes between TP and PP for penile cancer. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we conducted a retrospective cohort review of penile cancer patients enlisted in the database between the years 2006-2016 using the International Classification of Diseases clinical modification 9th revision codes. A total of 260 patients, 67 TP and 193 PP patients, were included. PP patients were less likely to be transferred patients (p = 0.002), diabetic (p = 0.026), and were more likely to have preoperative laboratory values within normal limits. PP patients also had shorter lengths of stay in the hospital (p < 0.001) and operating time (p < 0.001). Significant differences were also found for inpatient stay (p < 0.001), 30-day post-surgery complications (p < 0.001), deep incisional surgical site infection (SSI) (p = 0.017), wound disruption (p = 0.017), intraoperative or postoperative transfusion (p = 0.029), and sepsis (p < 0.005). Finally, PP patients required fewer concurrent surgical procedures (p < 0.001). Demographic differences between PP and TP patients may reflect patients presenting with more advanced oncologic disease. PP is associated with fewer postoperative complications, shorter surgeries, shorter hospital stays, fewer concurrent surgical procedures, and comorbid conditions compared to TP. A gap remains in the reported data pertaining to postoperative sexual function and erectile outcomes for PP at a national level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38890514What 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.