ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2022
The good, the bad, and the ugly about surgical approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation.
Review in International journal of impotence research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Infection prevention strategies in penile prosthesis implantation: a narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- How to improve functional outcome of inflatable penile implant surgery? a narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2025Review
- Penoscrotal inflatable penile prosthesis recipients often fully recover from pain at two weeks following placement.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- Risk factors for reoperation of inflatable penile prosthesis among an ethnically diverse urban population in a high-volume center.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- Changing trends in penile prosthesis implantation in China and an overview of postoperative outcomes from a single center.Basic and clinical andrology · 2024Article
- Inflatable penile prosthesis placement in Peyronie's disease: a review of surgical considerations, approaches, and maneuvers.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- History of penile implants: from implants made of bone to modern inflatable penile implants.International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- Comment on "Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after penile prosthesis placement in men with and without Peyronie's disease".International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Analysis of the effects of different surgical approaches on corporotomy localization in inflatable penile implant surgery performed by expert implant surgeons.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Voice Assistants as Consultants for Male Patients with Sexual Dysfunction: A Reliable Option?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Impact of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction and Peyronie's disease on reproductive and hormonal testicular function.Andrology · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Low-Intensity Extracorporeal Shock Wave Treatment in Erectile Dysfunction Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Current practices regarding corporotomy localization during penoscrotal inflatable penile implant surgery: a multicenter cohort study.International journal of impotence research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The penoscrotal (PS), infrapubic (IP), and subcoronal (SC) incisions are used for inserting an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Each surgical approach has its advantages and disadvantages and experts continue to debate which technique has the best outcomes. We performed a critical review of the published English-language studies up to April 2020 investigating the PS, IP, or SC approach for IPP placement. The PS approach is the most frequently used incision. The available data do not suggest a difference between PS and IP approach in size of the implanted prostheses, achieved penile length, patient satisfaction, infection rate, and risk of urethral injury. The risk of dorsal nerve injury, even if low, seems to be greater for IP approach. IP technique is associated with shorter operative time and earlier use of IPP compared with PS approach. Despite limited available data it is reasonable to assume that SC approach, compared with other approaches, has longer operative time and similar infection rate. The time to device activation with SC technique could be similar to the IP approach, but there is only minimal data that can confirm this hypothesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32488210What 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.