ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2025
Sexual and urological reconstruction following penectomy for penile cancer: phalloplasty.
Review 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phalloplasty following penectomy for penile cancer presents a complex reconstructive challenge, requiring restoration of urinary and sexual function while addressing anatomical and psychological sequelae. Unlike gender-affirming phalloplasty, this procedure is complicated by previous surgery and potential anatomical deficits. However, limited data exist to guide reconstruction in this cohort. This narrative review summarises available evidence on phalloplasty post-penectomy. A systematic search identified six relevant studies, including 48 patients, with follow-up ranging from 1 to 150 months. The radial artery free flap (RAP) and anterolateral thigh flap (ALTP) are the preferred techniques, each with distinct advantages and limitations. While RAP offers superior tactile recovery, ALTP reduces donor site morbidity. Complication rates are high, particularly urethral strictures and fistulae, affecting up to 64.3% of cases. Despite these risks, functional outcomes, including standing micturition and sexual activity, are achievable and patient satisfaction remains high. Challenges include extrapolating data from transgender cohorts and managing psychosocial concerns. A multidisciplinary approach is essential for optimising patient selection, counselling, and long-term outcomes. Further research is needed to refine surgical techniques, improve complication management, and explore innovative reconstructive strategies.
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.