ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2018
Infection following penile prosthesis placement at an academic training center remains low despite involvement of surgeons-in-training.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preoperative penoscrotal swab microbiology and postoperative infection concordance in malleable penile prosthesis surgery: A prospective randomized study of skin antisepsis.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Laminar Airflow in Penile Prosthesis Surgery and Infection: An Empty Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- New findings regarding the influence of assistants on surgical outcomes in penile prosthesis implantation.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Complications and troubleshooting in primary penile prosthetic surgery-a review.International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- Penile implant infection factors: a contemporary narrative review of literature.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- 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
- Ten-year experience with penile prosthetic surgery for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: outcomes of a tertiary referral center and predictors of early prosthetic infection.Asian journal of andrologyArticle
- Risk profiling in patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation.Asian journal of andrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Primary care providers harbor misconceptions regarding penile prosthetic surgery, largely overestimating the rate of infection. Rates of infection following surgery for primary placement and revision are estimated as 1% to 3% and 10% to 18%, respectively. Our objective was to determine the contemporary incidence of infection following inflatable penile prostheses surgery at an academic training center where surgeons-in-training are routinely involved. Materials and Methods: Review of a prospectively collected single-surgeon database was performed. All cases of inflatable penile prostheses placement from January 2011 through June 2017 were reviewed. Information regarding training level of assistant surgeon(s) was collected, and follow-up data was compiled regarding postoperative infections and need for revision surgery. Results: Three hundred nine cases meeting inclusion criteria were identified. Mean patient age was 64.2 years, and mean follow-up was 28.7 months. Distribution involved 257 (83.2%) for primary placement, 45 (14.6%) for removal/replacement, and 7 (2.3%) in setting of prior device removal. Diabetes was noted in 31.1% of men. Surgeon-in-training involvement was noted in 100% of cases. Infection was confirmed in a patient who had skin breakdown over an area of corporal reconstruction with polytetrafluoroethylene. The overall postoperative infection rate was 0.3%. Conclusions: In this series from an academic training center, infection following penile prosthetic surgery is low, similar to other centers of excellence, even with 100% involvement of surgeons-in-training. This data should be used to better inform primary care providers and members of the general public potentially interested in restoration of sexual function.
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.