Recommendations for Treating Males: An Ethical Rationale for the Inclusion of Testicular Self-Examination (TSE) in a Standard of Care.

The phrase "standard of care" is primarily a legal term representing what procedure a reasonable person (i.e., health practitioner) would administer to patients across similar circumstances. One major concern for health practitioners is delivering and advocating for treatments not defined as a standard of care. While providing such treatments may meet certain ethical imperatives, doing so may unwittingly trigger medical malpractice litigation fears from practitioners. Apprehension to deviate, even slightly, from the standard of care may (seem to) put the practitioner at significant risk for litigation, which, in turn, may limit options for treatment and preventive measures recommended by the practitioner. Specific to testicular treatment, certain guidelines exist for cancer, torsion, vasectomy, and scrotal masses, among others. As it relates to screening, practitioner examination is expected for patients presenting with testicular abnormalities. Testicular self-examination (TSE) advocacy, however, is discouraged by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which may prompt a general unwillingness among health practitioners to promote the behavior. Considering the benefits TSE has beyond cancer detection, and the historical support it has received among health practitioners, it is paramount to consider the ethical implications of its official "exclusion" from preventive health and clinical care recommendations (i.e., standard of care). Since good ethics should lead practitioner patient care guidelines, not fear of increased malpractice risks, we recommend the development of a standard of care for counseling males to perform TSE.

"Off-Label" Usage of Testicular Self-Examination (TSE): Benefits Beyond Cancer Detection.

Testicular cancer (TCa) is the most common cancer among 15- to 34-year-old males. Treatments are highly effective, which help foster approximately 98% 5-year survival rate. There are very few known causal factors of the disease (e.g., cryptorchidism and family history), thus possibly limiting primary prevention methods. Secondary preventative measures, on the other hand, most notably testicular self-examination (TSE), are well-known and are promoted to help prevent late-stage diagnosis of TCa. However, debate ensues as to whether or not TSE provides any benefit. In light of a recent systematic review conducted by these authors assessing the effectiveness of TSE promotion interventions, we propose that the behavior can serve as a tool not just for detection of TCa, but other male-specific urogenital health concerns, including varicoceles, hydroceles, among others. Furthermore, we suggest that TSE can also help foster informed decision-making skills among males with regard to health concerns and treatment options. However, our advocacy is in direct conflict with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's influential "D" rating of TSE and others who recommend against performing TSE. This article offers an overview of the dispute over TSE's purpose and net benefit. We conclude that TSE is a behavior that is beneficial beyond detecting cancer. These proposed "off-label" uses of the procedure make for an effectual means to promote testicular health, self-awareness, and wellness among males. Recommendations for future research and advocacy are presented to the academy.

Adult-acquired hidden penis in obese patients: a critical survey of the literature.

CONTEXT: Hidden penis is anatomically defined by a lack of firm attachments of the skin and dartos fascia to the underlying Buck fascia. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the research evidence that could support the most effective surgical techniques for adult-acquired hidden penis in obese patients. METHODS: Studies investigating patients with a diagnosis of hidden penis were identified. Of these studies, only those with adult patients classified as overweight or obese (body mass index >25) were included in the review. Three reviewers examined the abstracts of the studies identified in the initial Medline search, and abstracts considered potentially relevant underwent full-text review. Studies that included patients with congenital, iatrogenic (eg, circumcision issues or aesthetic genital surgery), or traumatic causes of hidden penis were excluded. Studies that did not define the diagnostic criteria for hidden penis were excluded to minimize the risk of definition bias. The quality of evidence for each study was determined after considering the following sources of bias: method of allocation to study groups, data analysis, presence of baseline differences between groups, objectivity of outcome, and completeness of follow-up. Using these criteria, studies were then graded as high, moderate, or low in quality. RESULTS: Seven studies with a total of 119 patients met the inclusion criteria. All but 1 of the studies were nonrandomized. One study provided a clear presentation of results and appropriate statistical analysis. Six studies accounted for individual-based differences, and 1 study failed to account for baseline differences altogether. Four studies addressed follow-up. One study was of high quality, 2 were of moderate quality, and 4 were of low quality. CONCLUSION: Building a clinical practice guideline for the surgical management of hidden penis has proven difficult because of a lack of high-quality, statistically significant data in the research synthesis. The authors elucidate the challenges and epitomize the collective wisdom of surgeons who have investigated this problem and emphasize the need for rigorous evaluative studies.