ReviewCurrent urology reports2014
Significance of biofilm for the prosthetic surgeon.
Review in Current urology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- An update on penile prostheses: a narrative review.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Review
- Emerging strategies for the prevention of bacterial biofilm in prosthetic surgery.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Addressing the need for preclinical study of penile prosthesis infection: a new animal model and narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Advances in Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A Clinical Update.Turkish journal of urology · 2022Article
- The future of penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Infection Prevention Considerations for Complex Penile Prosthesis Recipients.Current urology reports · 2019Review
- Bacterial biofilm formation on implantable devices and approaches to its treatment and prevention.Heliyon · 2018Review
- Penile prosthesis biofilm formation and emerging therapies against them.Translational andrology and urology · 2018Review
- Non-infected penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery; comparison between antibiotic coated and non - coated devices.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- Updates in penile prosthesis infections.Asian journal of andrologyReview
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
Biofilm formation on implanted medical devices is becoming more recognized as both a common finding and a potential problem. Although seen frequently in nature, these sequestered bacterial communities are proving to be an assiduous enemy as medical device technologies advance. The penile prosthesis has gone through many improvements, now with a more reliable mechanical function and a reduced infection rate. However, there remains a notable increase in infectious risk in revisions compared to novel cases, with many implants found to harbor a subclinical bacterial presence isolated in biofilms. This article focuses on recent updates in implant technology and surgical technique to combat infection, and reviews current research on biofilm prevention and treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24740272What 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.