ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2026
Nonaccidental penile and scrotal strangulation: a case series from Vietnam.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Penile and penoscrotal strangulation are rare but serious urologic emergencies. Delayed decompression can lead to venous obstruction, ischemia, tissue necrosis, and irreversible functional loss. This report presents four cases to illustrate management strategies for metallic constricting devices in resource-limited settings. Presentation of the cases: Four male patients, aged 28-60, presented with strangulation caused by metallic nuts or rings used for sexual enhancement or masturbation, with entrapment durations ranging from 10 hours to 1 week. Clinical findings included penile swelling, pain, and bruising, while sensation and the ability to void were preserved. Initial bedside removal attempts using lubricant were unsuccessful. All patients underwent emergency removal in the operating room with a handheld rotary electric saw, aided by continuous saline irrigation to prevent thermal injury and by a metal plate for protection. All devices were successfully removed, and postoperative recovery showed minor skin burns but no major complications. Discussion: Early recognition and prompt decompression are essential to avoid severe penile injury. Treatment should be individualized based on the constricting device's characteristics, edema level, incarceration severity, and available resources. In settings lacking standard urologic tools, nonconventional methods can be effective, and continued postoperative monitoring is crucial for detecting complications. Conclusion: Penile strangulation is an urgent condition requiring swift intervention. Early removal of the device can maintain penile function, and adaptable techniques can ensure positive outcomes even in resource-limited environments.
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.