Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27900222›Full record

ArticleArab journal of urology2016

Surgical outcomes and complications of Tube® (Promedon) malleable penile prostheses in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction.

Elnisr Rashed Mohamed, Ahmed Rashed Hammady, Mohamed Zaki Eldahshoury, Ahmed Mamdouh Elsharkawi, Ahmed Mahmoud Riad, Hazem Mohamed Elmogazy, Mohamed Mostafa Hussien, Wael Mohamed Gamal

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arab journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Update on penile prosthesis.Asian journal of andrology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Surgical patient selection and counseling.Translational andrology and urology · 2017
    Review
  7. Malleable Penile Prosthesis Fractures: Lessons Learned from 17 Years of Experience at a Tertiary Center in Brazil.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elnisr Rashed MohamedUrology Department, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Ahmed Rashed HammadyUrology Department, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Mohamed Zaki EldahshouryUrology Department, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Ahmed Mamdouh ElsharkawiUrology Department, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Ahmed Mahmoud RiadUrology Department, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Hazem Mohamed ElmogazyUrology Department, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Mohamed Mostafa HussienUrology Department, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Wael Mohamed GamalUrology Department, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Sohag University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate surgical outcome, complications, and patients satisfaction with the Tube® (Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina) malleable penile prosthesis in diabetic and non-diabetic patients with refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). PATIENTS AND

methodsThe records of 128 eligible patients who received Tube malleable penile prostheses at our institute between September 2008 and October 2015 were reviewed.

resultsOf the 128 patients, who received Tube penile prostheses at our institute, 53 were diabetics and 75 were non-diabetics. Both groups of patients were comparable for mean age, education level, marital status, hospital stay, time to commencing sexual intercourse, and median follow-up. Complications included: inter-corporeal septal perforation (2.3%), glanular urethral injury (1.5%), acute urinary retention (3.9%), superficial wound infection (7%), penile discomfort (9.4%), and penile prostheses infection (5.5%). Moreover, 3.9% developed atrophy of the cavernosal tissue, 5.5% experienced bad cosmesis, 6.3% experienced ejaculatory disorders, and 2.3% developed bladder calculi. In all, 13 prostheses (9.4%) were removed, seven of them due to infection, three on the patients' demand and three due to mechanical failure. The satisfaction rates with the prostheses were 77.3% and 79.4% in the diabetic and non-diabetic patients, respectively; with an overall satisfaction rate of 78.5%. There was no significant difference in the complication rate or prostheses infection between diabetic and non-diabetic patients.

conclusionTube malleable penile prostheses are associated with low complication and high satisfaction rates. There was no significant difference in the complication rate or prostheses infection between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. A prospective comparative study with a large number of patients is recommended.

Indexed as

cGMP, cyclic guanosine monophosphateDiabetic patientsDM, diabetes mellitusED, erectile dysfunctionErectile dysfunctionMalleable prosthesesNO, nitric oxideOutcomePDE5I, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitorPGE1, prostaglandin E1US, ultrasonography

Identifiers

PMID27900222
PMCPMC5122751
OpenAlexW2515660634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.