ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2020
Two-piece inflatable and semi-rigid penile implants: an effective alternative?
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Restoring sexual health and relationship quality through penile prosthesis implantation.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2026Article
- Update on penile prosthesis.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Review
- Recent technological development of penile prosthesis: a literature review.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Male Sexual Dysfunction and Infertility in Spinal Cord Injury Patients: State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Surgical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction With the Low-Cost, Semi-Rigid Shah Penile Prosthesis: A boon to the Developing Countries.Sexual medicine · 2021Article
- Narrative review of penile prosthetic implant technology and surgical results, including transgender patients.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- Does Physical Activity Regulate Prostate Carcinogenesis and Prostate Cancer Outcomes? A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile prostheses (PPs) are an excellent treatment to be considered for patients suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED), refractory to oral medications, or unwilling to consider intracavernosal injections or other therapeutic strategies. Nowadays the market is dominated by three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), which are considered the best option available. However, in some specific cases three-piece IPP may be superseded by semi-rigid penile prosthesis (SRPP) and two-piece IPP. Despite the advantages of these implants, the literature is quite scarce, not robust and rarely takes into consideration the partner's satisfaction. This clearly affects the strength of our conviction. Most of the studies confirm that SRPPs and two-piece IPPs can be considered a valid alternative in patients with hand dexterity issues, refractory ischaemic priapism, neophallus and in cases of complex anatomies. In addition, the ease of placement and the high confidence level of surgeons make them a powerful tool in the armamentarium of urologists.
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.