Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
  • Register
  • Login

Urology Journal

  • Home
  • Instant Online
    • Instant 2026
    • Instant 2023
    • Instant 2021
    • Instant 2020
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • Submissions
  • Author Guidelines
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
Advanced Search
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Vol. 4 No. 2 (2007): Spring
  4. REVIEW

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2007)

February 2009

Penile Replantation, Science or Myth? A Systematic Review

  • Ali Reza Babaei
  • Mohammad Reza Safarinejad

Urology Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2 (2007), 14 February 2009 , Page 62-65
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v4i2.132 Published: 2009-02-14

  • View Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • Statastics
  • Share

Abstract

Introduction: Penile amputation is a rare urologic condition for which immediate surgical replantation is warranted. The surgical technique used for repair has been modified and refined. Our aim was to assess the effects of several interventions and management for amputated penis after replantation.

Materials and Methods: We searched the MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2007), EMBASE (January 1988 to January 2007), CINAHL (January 1982 to January 2007), PsycLIT (January 1984 to January 2007), ERIC (January 1984 to January 2007), and the bibliographic data of relevant articles; hand-searched conference proceedings; and contacted investigators to locate studies. All reported cases of penile replantation were studied. We assessed all titles, abstracts, and extracted data from the articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures included cosmetic outcomes, acceptability, operative time, restoration of erectile function, sensibility of the glans, and long-term outcomes.

Results: Eighty patients had undergone penile replantation. There was considerable variation in the interventions, patients, and outcome measures. The majority of the reported cases in this area continue to be of moderate quality, although more recent cases have been of higher quality in terms of both patients' demographics and surgical techniques. Data were not available in all of the cases for many of the outcomes expected to be reported. There were several important variations in the cases studied.

Conclusion: The value of the various microsurgical techniques for replantation of the penis remains uncertain. Meticulous microsurgical techniques by experienced surgeons can reduce skin, urethra, and graft loss complications and produce a functional organ; nonetheless, such complications are still highly prevalent.

  • PDF

How to Cite

Babaei, A. R., & Safarinejad, M. R. (2009). Penile Replantation, Science or Myth? A Systematic Review. Urology Journal, 4(2), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v4i2.132
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX
  • Abstract Viewed: 354 times
  • PDF Downloaded: 545 times

Download Statastics

  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Telegram

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors

Developed By

Open Journal Systems
  • Home
  • Archives
  • Submissions
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Team
  • Contact
Powered by OJSPlus