Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30718828›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2019

Current practice in the management of ischemic priapism: an anonymous survey of ISSM members.

Mohit Butaney, Nannan Thirumavalavan, Dayron Rodriguez, Martin S Gross, Ricardo Munarriz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of impotence research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Top ten surgical tricks-penile prosthesis with corporal fibrosis.International journal of impotence research · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The use of scrotal ultrasound in the evaluation of varicoceles: A survey study of reproductive specialists.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mohit ButaneyDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. mohitbutaney@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4760-4026
Nannan ThirumavalavanDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4204-3899
Dayron RodriguezBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Martin S GrossDartmouth Hitchcock School of Medicine, Lebanon, PA, USA.
Ricardo MunarrizBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center · USMayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

Multidisciplinary K12 Urologic Research (KURe) Career Development ProgramK12DK083014 · NIDDK · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI LAMB, DOLORES JEAN · 2008 to 2017
$6.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS K12 DK083014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Penile shunting is the standard of care in management of ischemic priapism refractory (IPR) to non-surgical interventions. Due to high rates of impotence, corporal fibrosis, and loss of penile length, recent literature suggests these patients benefit from immediate penile prosthesis (PP) placement. An IRB-exempt anonymous electronic survey of the 2168 members of the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) was conducted. The survey included demographic information, confidence, and experience-related management of IPR. The aim was to evaluate current practice patterns in management of IPR and to investigate the role of immediate PP implantation in the management of prolonged (>36 h) IPR. The survey response rate was 11.6% (n = 251). Most respondents were urologists (173), from the USA (49.1%), and had completed a fellowship in male sexual medicine, men's health, reconstruction, or andrology (71.1%). The majority (91.3%) see at least one case of prolonged priapism (>36 h) that requires surgical management yearly. When looking at volume in training and after, our respondents had a significantly higher experience with penile prostheses (over 70%, > = 10) as compared with shunts (less than 40%, > = 10). Overall, 70.9% of respondents felt more comfortable with a malleable PP than a shunt. However, penile shunts are still preferred as the first line of surgical management by ~80% of respondents as compared with 12.7% who instead prefer a PP. We also found that under 40% of respondents currently use penile MRI or corporal biopsies in their management of prolonged assessment. This is the first study to assess current clinical practices in management of IPR globally. As in any anonymous self-reported survey-based research, recall and sampling bias are an inherent limitation. Penile shunting for IPR continues to be the preferred treatment despite emerging data. Respondents performed PP surgery routinely and feel more confident placing PP than performing penile shunting procedures.

Indexed as

AdultBiopsyHumansIschemiaMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPenile ImplantationPenisPractice Patterns, Physicians'PriapismRegional Blood FlowSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30718828
PMCPMC6679808
OpenAlexW2912973197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.