ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2018
Infection risk of undergoing multiple penile prostheses: an analysis of referred patient surgical histories.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immediate salvage procedure for infected penile prostheses: A review of the advances in surgical technique and antimicrobial strategies.International journal of impotence research · 2025Review
- Perioperative infection prevention during inflatable penile prosthesis surgery: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Narrative review of immediate salvage for penile prosthesis infection.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Penile fibrosis-still scarring urologists today: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Surgical tips in difficult penile prosthetic surgery: a narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange: a single-center retrospective cohort study.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Maximizing outcomes in penile prosthetic surgery: exploring strategies to prevent and manage infectious and non-infectious complications.International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- Celebrating 50 years of penile implants.International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- Immediate salvage with inflatable penile prosthesis in an infected field is associated with a high success rate.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- A scoping review of penile implant biofilms-what do we know and what remains unknown?Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
- Prevention of Penile Prosthesis Infection.Current urology reports · 2022Review
- Penile implant infection factors: a contemporary narrative review of literature.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- Long-term outcomes after penile prosthesis placement for the Management of Erectile Dysfunction: a single-Centre experience.Basic and clinical andrology · 2021Article
- Penile implant infection prevention part 1: what is fact and what is fiction? Wilson's Workshop #9.International journal of impotence research · 2020Review
- Editorial Comment on: Multicentre investigation on the influence of climate in penile prosthesis infection.International journal of impotence research · 2020Article
- Penile Prosthesis Infection: Myths and Realities.The world journal of men's health · 2019Review
- Optimizing Outcomes in the Virgin Penile Implant Patient.Current urology reports · 2019Review
- An update on the best approaches to prevent complications in penile prosthesis recipients.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard for medically refractory erectile dysfunction. Infectious complications remain a significant concern in IPP revision surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of number of IPP surgeries on subsequent infection rates. A retrospective analysis was performed on all new patients (self or outside provider referred) presenting for consideration of IPP revision or salvage surgery between 2013 and 2015. Histories were reviewed including number of prior IPPs, reason for evaluation, and rate, number, and timing of prior IPP infections. No patients were operated on by the primary investigator prior to data acquisition. We identified 44 patients with at least one prior IPP presenting for consultation regarding IPP revision/salvage. There were 88 IPPs placed by 28 different surgeons. In patients with two or more devices, 55% had at least two different surgeons. The most common reason for presentation was malfunction (52%). The risk of specific device infection was strongly correlated and increased based on number of prior IPPs: 1st (6.8%; 3/44), 2nd (18.2%; 4/22), 3rd (33.3%; 4/12), 4th (50%; 4/8), and 5th (100%; 2/2) (R
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.