ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026
Contemporary imaging analysis of a pioneering case of post-traumatic total penile reconstruction from the early 20th century.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the Forensic Collection of the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Belgrade there is an autopsy specimen of a man who underwent total reconstruction of the penis he had previously lost due to war injury, collected in the year 1929 by Professor Milovan Milovanović (1884-1948). The museum exhibit No. 453, labeled as Penis Arteficialis, is a specimen of in toto dissected male pubic region, including the grossly altered male external genitalia - the mechanical injury that completely destroyed the penis was partially overcome by a procedure of total phalloplasty: abdominal skin flap was used to create a bulky phalloid structure, with autologous rib cartilage fragment incorporated in its proximal part to provide sufficient rigidity for sexual intercourse. The procedure left an acquired hypospadia, since its inherent limitation was the inability to reconstruct the urethra through the artificial penis. The unaltered autopsy specimen was analyzed using multi-detector computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging to reveal the complete anatomy of the pioneering total phalloplasty, while preserving the museum specimen. So, we demonstrated the essential elements of what was a successful reconstructive procedure of the time: the artificial penis with cartilage proximally embedded into the root portion of the erectile tissue, enabling stimulation, arousal, and rigidity, and the unobstructed urethra that opened on the skin below the neophallus. Milovanović sought to preserve this achievement in reconstructive surgery, and today, with imaging, we can directly observe the pioneering surgical approach to total penile reconstruction, appreciating its achievements and limitations in terms of morphology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42334826What 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.