Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31395986›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2020

Radical prostatectomy and simultaneous penile prosthesis implantation: a narrative review.

Andrea Cocci, Gianmartin Cito, Andrea Romano, Gaetano Larganà, Graziano Vignolini, Andrea Minervini, Fabrizio Di Maida, Riccardo Campi, Marco Carini, Nicola Mondaini and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of impotence research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Patient Outcomes After Penile Prosthesis Placement with Concomitant Non-Reconstructive Urologic Procedures.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andrea CocciDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. cocci.andrea@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0138-6294
Gianmartin CitoDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7526-4025
Andrea RomanoDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Gaetano LarganàDepartment of Urology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Graziano VignoliniDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Andrea MinerviniDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Fabrizio Di MaidaDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Riccardo CampiDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5237-0888
Marco CariniDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Nicola MondainiAndrology Center, Villa Donatello Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Giorgio Ivan RussoDepartment of Urology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4687-7353
University of Florence · ITUniversity of Catania · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy (RP) represents one of the most commonly used first-line treatment modalities in men with localized prostate cancer (PCa). Despite efforts to preserve the neurovascular bundles with nerve sparing (NS) surgery, erectile dysfunction (ED) remains common after RP and this may significantly affect patients' quality of life (QoL). The aim of this paper is to evaluate the outcome of simultaneous placement of penile prosthesis and RP. The ideal candidates for simultaneous penile prosthesis implantation are those who report pre-existent refractory ED and patients in whom there is a high risk of extracapsular disease, such as any cT2c or cT3, and undergo non-nerve sparing RP. If the patient chooses to undergo PPI to treat his refractory ED it is clear that this procedure will be associated with higher patients' satisfaction rates, if carried out simultaneously with RP rather than at a later stage. A simultaneous procedure would avoid two admissions, reduce hospitalization time and guarantee a faster recovery of sexual function, preventing the otherwise unavoidable loss of penile length. Since the urologist does not need to preserve the neurovascular bundles, as the penile implant will take care of postoperative rigidity, RP can be performed more radically from an oncological point of view, thus reducing the risk of recurrence and metastasis, especially in patients with high risk of locally advanced disease. In conclusion, simultaneous PPI with RP provides early sexual rehabilitation, improving patients' quality of life, without compromising surgical outcomes. However, larger series will be necessary, to better identify the patients who are more likely to benefit from nerve sparing surgery and postoperative penile rehabilitation from those who would are more likely to develop refractory ED post RP and would therefore benefit from simultaneous implantation of a penile prosthesis.

Indexed as

Penile ImplantationPenile ProsthesisErectile DysfunctionHumansMaleProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID31395986
OpenAlexW2968609554

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.