Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29299902›Full record

ReviewThe world journal of men's health2018

Role of Penile Prosthesis in Priapism: A Review.

Amit G Reddy, Laith M Alzweri, Andrew T Gabrielson, Gabriel Leinwand, Wayne J G Hellstrom

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The world journal of men's health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Top ten surgical tricks-penile prosthesis with corporal fibrosis.International journal of impotence research · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. MR imaging of penile pathology and prostheses.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review of Ischemic and Non-ischemic Priapism.Current urology reports · 2022
    Review
  10. [Penile prosthesis].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
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

5 authors.

Amit G ReddyDepartment of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9905-5209
Laith M AlzweriDepartment of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8467-2688
Andrew T GabrielsonDepartment of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9971-9813
Gabriel LeinwandDepartment of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3816-4791
Wayne J G HellstromDepartment of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA. whellst@tulane.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1284-959X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ischemic priapism is a urological emergency that has been associated with long-standing and irreversible adverse effects on erectile function. Studies have demonstrated a linear relationship between the duration of critically ischemic episodes and the subsequent development of corporal fibrosis and irreversible erectile function loss. Placement of a penile prosthesis is a well-established therapeutic option for the management of erectile dysfunction secondary to ischemic priapism, and will be the focus of this review. Review of the current literature demonstrates a growing utilization of penile prostheses in the treatment of erectile dysfunction secondary to ischemic priapism. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of randomized-controlled trials describing the use of prosthesis in ischemic priapism. As a result, there is a lack of consensus regarding the type of prosthesis (malleable vs. inflatable), timing of surgery (acute vs. delayed), and anticipated complications for each approach. Both types of prostheses yielded comparable complication rates, but the inflatable penile prosthesis have higher satisfaction rates. Acute treatment of priapism was associated with increased risk of prosthetic infection, and could potentially cause psychological trauma, whereas delayed implantation was associated with greater corporal fibrosis, loss of penile length, and increased technical difficulty of implantation. The paucity of high-level evidence fuels the ongoing discussion of optimal use and timing of penile prosthesis implantation. Current guidance is based on consensus expert opinion derived from small, retrospective studies. Until more robust data is available, a patient-centered approach and joint decision-making between the patient and his urologist is recommended.

Indexed as

Erectile dysfunctionPriapismProstheses and implants

Identifiers

PMID29299902
PMCPMC5756805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.