ReviewThe world journal of men's health2018
Role of Penile Prosthesis in Priapism: A Review.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Top ten surgical tricks-penile prosthesis with corporal fibrosis.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Evaluating the management trends for priapism and assessing the risk of priapism after in-office intracavernosal injections: a cross-sectional analysis.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- MR imaging of penile pathology and prostheses.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Idiopathic recurrent ischemic priapism: a review of current literature and an algorithmic approach to evaluation and management.Basic and clinical andrology · 2024Article
- Comment on: Technological advances in penile implants: past, present, future.International journal of impotence research · 2024Article
- Penile fibrosis-still scarring urologists today: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Article
- Early versus delayed penile prosthesis insertion for refractory ischemic priapism.Arab journal of urology · 2023Article
- Review of Ischemic and Non-ischemic Priapism.Current urology reports · 2022Review
- [Penile prosthesis].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
- Molecular Mechanisms and Current Pharmacotherapy of Peyronie's Disease: A Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Letter to the editor: Changes in health-related quality of life after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: A longitudinal cohort study in Korea.Investigative and clinical urology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.