Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30701338›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2019

A Contemporary Evaluation of Peyronie's Disease During Penile Prosthesis Placement: MOST, MUST, and More.

Jonathan Nicholas Warner

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan Nicholas WarnerDivision of Urology and Urologic Oncology, City Of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Ave, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA. Jonathan.n.warner@gmail.com.
City of Hope · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe use of penile implant for the treatment of both erectile dysfunction and Peyronie's disease has changed little in the last 40 years, primarily limited to modeling and plaque incision. In the current review, I explore the history of Peyronie's treatment at the time of penile prosthesis placement and explore new surgical options that help resolve several of the issues that were not treated with the traditional approaches. RECENT

findingsAdvancements have been made in the area of graft material, lengthening procedures, and transcorporal techniques. The goal of these operations is not only to correct curvature, but also to restore length. Not surprisingly, the more complex and aggressive the attempt to correct the curvature, the more complications are possible. While modeling has a low rate of urethral injury, complex lengthening procedure with neurovascular bundle and urethral mobilization may lead to the dreaded complication of glans necrosis. Meanwhile, transcorporal techniques seem to offer a more modest improvement for length and curvature restoration with fewer risks than those seen in more aggressive lengthening procedures. The main limitation to the historical treatment of Peyronie's disease during penile prosthesis, modeling, and plaque incision is there is often no resolution to the penile length-as the maneuvers are made after the implant is already in place. Newer lengthening procedures are promising, however carry increased risks and complexity.

Indexed as

Penile ProsthesisDissectionHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansMalePenile ImplantationPenile IndurationPenisPenile implantPenile prosthesis placementPeyronie’s diseaseUrologic surgery

Identifiers

PMID30701338
OpenAlexW2911578141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.