ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2020
Penile implant infection prevention part II: device coatings have changed the game.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- The 50 most-cited primary studies in penile prosthesis surgery: An all-time bibliometric analysis.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Comment on: Zero-Touch Technique: a new paradigm in penile prosthesis surgery enabled by a sterile genital barrier system.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Infection following inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a real-world comparison of device selection and patient characteristics.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Dynamic inflatable penile prosthesis (DIPP) with the enhanced Rigicon Infla10International journal of impotence research · 2025Review
- Comparing 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate monotherapy to conventional antibiotic irrigation inTranslational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- Unveiling the Hidden Perils: A Comprehensive Review of Fungal Infections in Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Overcoming barriers to immediate penile implant salvage surgery: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Narrative review of immediate salvage for penile prosthesis infection.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- A scoping review of penile implant biofilms-what do we know and what remains unknown?Translational andrology and urology · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The single most important factor in the reduction of penile implant infections has been the infection retardant coatings. Virtually every inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) sold for the last 15 years in America has been coated and the device infection rate has dropped over 50% to less than 1% in experienced implanter practices. The vast majority of penile implants are contaminated with bacteria at time of surgery and the bacteria live within the implant spaces in a quiescent fashion protected by a biofilm secreted by the organisms that makes them impermeable to antibiotics or the body's defense mechanisms. Only very rarely do the bacteria cause a clinical infection. Medicine has no clue why this atypically happens. There are new recommendations for systemic prophylactic antibiotics-a testimonial to the changing face of the bacteria causing device infection. New washout solutions are being utilized and new salvage guidelines are being studied.
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.