ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Stapler vs. sleeve circumcision for multiple penile condylomata acuminata: a comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple penile condylomata acuminata (CA) often involve the inner foreskin and frenulum. This retrospective study compared conventional sleeve and disposable circular stapler circumcision, each combined with ablation of visible lesions, in selected patients with multiple penile CA. Methods: Consecutive patients aged 18-55 years with at least 5 visible lesions involving the foreskin and/or frenulum who underwent treatment between January 2020 and December 2024 were screened. Propensity-score matching (1:1 nearest neighbor, caliper 0.05) using prespecified covariates yielded 41 patients per group. Outcomes included operative time, blood loss, complications, baseline and 12-month IIEF-15, cosmetic appearance, patient satisfaction, and 12-month recurrence. Results: After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced (all standardized mean differences <0.1). Compared with sleeve circumcision, stapler circumcision was associated with shorter operative time (mean difference -14.2 min, 95% CI -16.7 to -11.7), less blood loss (mean difference -7.5 mL, 95% CI -9.2 to -5.8), higher patient- and surgeon-rated cosmetic scores (mean differences 0.7 and 0.8, respectively), and higher patient satisfaction (mean difference 0.7). IIEF-15 scores were similar. Recurrence occurred in 6/41 (14.6%) stapler patients and 8/41 (19.5%) sleeve patients (risk difference -4.9%, 95% CI -21.1% to 11.4%; odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.26). No major complications occurred. Conclusion: In this single-center retrospective matched cohort of carefully selected patients without anatomical contraindications to stapler placement, stapler circumcision was associated with perioperative and patient-reported advantages. The recurrence estimate was imprecise and does not establish equivalence or non-inferiority. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger prospective studies with longer follow-up.
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.