ReviewCureus2025
Conventional Penile Reconstruction Versus Penile Allotransplantation: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile loss from trauma, oncologic resection, congenital anomalies, or gender-affirming needs represents a devastating condition with profound functional and psychosocial implications. Conventional reconstructive techniques, including radial forearm, fibula, scapular, and anterolateral thigh flaps, have evolved over decades and provide patients with an acceptable neophallus capable of voiding and sexual activity. However, these methods remain limited by donor-site morbidity, prosthesis-related complications, high revision rates, and the inability to restore natural erectile tissue or fully replicate penile appearance. In recent years, penile allotransplantation has emerged as an alternative within the field of vascularized composite allotransplantation, offering restoration of native anatomy and the potential to achieve sensation, erectile function, and even fertility. To date, only five penile transplantations have been reported worldwide, each demonstrating encouraging short-term outcomes but raising complex challenges. The primary concerns are the lifelong requirement for systemic immunosuppression, the unknown long-term consequences of rejection episodes, and significant ethical and psychosocial considerations, including donor allocation, patient selection, and recipient and partner acceptance. In this narrative review, we compared conventional reconstructive approaches with transplantation, drawing on published literature and clinical experience to highlight indications, surgical techniques, functional outcomes, and psychosocial dimensions. While reconstruction remains the standard of care and provides reliable outcomes compatible with normal life expectancy, transplantation holds promise as a quality-of-life-enhancing option for carefully selected patients. Ongoing clinical research, refinement of surgical and immunological strategies, and the development of robust preclinical models will be essential in defining the role of penile allotransplantation in the future.
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.