Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26816839›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2015

Does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant?

Geng-Long Hsu, Heng-Shuen Chen, Sheng-Jean Huang

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Geng-Long Hsu1 Microsurgical Potency Reconstruction and Research Center, Hsu's Andrology and National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan ; 2 National Taiwan University Hospital, Jin-Shan Branch, New Taipei, Taiwan ; 3 Department of Medical Informatics & Family Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Heng-Shuen Chen1 Microsurgical Potency Reconstruction and Research Center, Hsu's Andrology and National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan ; 2 National Taiwan University Hospital, Jin-Shan Branch, New Taipei, Taiwan ; 3 Department of Medical Informatics & Family Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Sheng-Jean Huang1 Microsurgical Potency Reconstruction and Research Center, Hsu's Andrology and National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan ; 2 National Taiwan University Hospital, Jin-Shan Branch, New Taipei, Taiwan ; 3 Department of Medical Informatics & Family Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
National Taiwan University Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOverall prosthesis survival is important in penile implant, which remains the final viable solution to many patients with refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). This paper is to retrospectively study the role of the anatomy of tunica albuginea (TA).

methodsFrom March 1987 to March 1991 while the TA was regarded as a circumferential single layer, 21 organically ED men, aged from 27 to 77, received penile prosthesis implantation and were allocated to conventional group. From August 1992 to March 2013 while the tip of Hegar's dilator was categorically directed medial-dorsally during corporal dilatation derived from newfound TA as a bi-layered structure with a 360° complete inner circular layer and a 300° incomplete outer longitudinal coat, 196 ED males, aged from 35 to 83, underwent penile implant and were categorized to advanced group. The model of prosthesis was recorded. Prosthesis loss rate and survival time were analyzed and the follow up period ranged from 22.4-26.4 (average 24.3) years and 0.4-20.6 (average 15.8) years to the conventional and advanced group respectively.

resultsTo the conventional and advanced group, the number of inflatable and rigid type prosthesis used were 2, 19 and 15, 181 respectively, whereas the prosthesis loss was encountered in 50.0% (1/2), 15.8% (3/19) and 0.0% (0/15), 0.6% (1/181) respectively. And the prosthesis survival time were 5.1-6.3 (5.7) years, 1.3-26.4 (15.2) years and 6.1-16.2 (11.2) years, 0.4-20.6 (15.3) years to the conventional and advanced group respectively. Statistical significance was noted on prosthesis loss in groups (P=0.01) while the Mentor Acuform stood out in prosthesis survival.

conclusionsAnatomy-based managing maneuver appears to deliver better surgery success in penile implant. Tunica anatomy is significant in performing implant surgery.

Indexed as

penile implantprosthesis extrusionprosthesis lossTunica albuginea in human penis (TA in human penis)

Identifiers

PMID26816839
PMCPMC4708595
OpenAlexW1913821008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.