ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2020
Radical prostatectomy and simultaneous penile prosthesis implantation: a narrative review.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening of hub genes and evaluation of the growth regulatory role of CD44 in metastatic prostate cancer.Oncology reports · 2021Article
- Radical prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer on oncological and functional outcomes: a meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Robotic radical cystectomy with concomitant implantation of 3-piece penile prosthesis: a one-step solution.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- Patient Outcomes After Penile Prosthesis Placement with Concomitant Non-Reconstructive Urologic Procedures.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.