ReviewArab journal of urology2013
Penile vascular surgery for treating erectile dysfunction: Current role and future direction.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Septum of the penis - dissection, anatomical description and functional relevance.Basic and clinical andrology · 2024Article
- Cardiometabolic Disorder and Erectile Dysfunction.Cell biochemistry and biophysics · 2024Review
- Tissue Engineering for Penile Reconstruction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Erectile dysfunction and cancer: current perspective.Radiation oncology journal · 2020Article
- Development of a novel topical formulation of glyceryl trinitrate for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.International journal of impotence research · 2020Review
- Penile implants: a look into the future.Translational andrology and urology · 2017Review
- A history of penile implants.Translational andrology and urology · 2017Review
- Venous ligation: a novel strategy for glans enhancement in penile prosthesis implantation.BioMed research international · 2014Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile vascular surgery for treating erectile dysfunction (ED) is still regarded cautiously. Thus we reviewed relevant publications from the last decade, summarising evidence-based reports consistent with the pessimistic consensus and, by contrast, the optimistically viable options for vascular reconstruction for ED published after 2003. Recent studies support a revised model of the tunica albuginea of the corpora cavernosa as a bi-layered structure with a 360° complete inner circular layer and a 300° incomplete outer longitudinal coat. Additional studies show a more sophisticated venous drainage system than previously understood, and most significantly, that the emissary veins can be easily occluded by the shearing action elicited by the inner and outer layers of the tunica albuginea. Pascal's law has been shown to be a significant, if not the major, factor in erectile mechanics, with recent haemodynamic studies on fresh and defrosted human cadavers showing rigid erections despite the lack of endothelial activity. Reports on revascularisation surgery support its utility in treating arterial trauma in young males, and with localised arterial occlusive disease in the older man. Penile venous stripping surgery has been shown to be beneficial in correcting veno-occlusive dysfunction, with outstanding results. The traditional complications of irreversible penile numbness and deformity have been virtually eliminated, with the venous ligation technique superseding venous cautery. Penile vascular reconstructive surgery is viable if, and only if, the surgical handling is appropriate using a sound method. It should be a promising option in the near future.
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.