ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2025
Management of prolonged wrench penile entrapment: A case report & literature review.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Penile entrapment is a rare urological emergency that may lead to mechanical and vascular complications. It commonly occurs due to the use of constrictive devices during sexual activity. Delayed presentation, often due to embarrassment or psychiatric disorders, can worsen outcomes. We present a case of prolonged penile entrapment involving a wrench, successfully managed using an electric grinder. Case presentation: A 61-year-old male presented with penile swelling and urinary retention for three days. He reported placing a wrench around the base of his penis three weeks prior during a delusional episode. Examination revealed significant oedema with the wrench firmly embedded. Laboratory evaluation showed type 2 diabetes mellitus, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte imbalances. The device was removed under local anesthesia using an electric grinder, with protective measures to avoid thermal injury. The patient experienced moderate erectile dysfunction postoperatively but reported no other urological complaints during follow-up. Discussion: Prompt recognition and management of penile entrapment are crucial to prevent ischemia, necrosis, and permanent damage. The method of device removal should be tailored to the severity of injury and type of constricting object. Mild cases may respond to manual or non-invasive techniques, while severe cases require mechanical tools. A multidisciplinary approach, including surgical, urological, and psychiatric input, improves outcomes and addresses underlying causes. Conclusion: Penile entrapment requires timely and tailored management. Mechanical tools such as electric grinders can be safely used in selected cases. Comprehensive care, including psychiatric evaluation, is vital for optimal recovery and prevention of recurrence.
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.