Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32883632›Full record

ArticleThe journal of sexual medicine2020

A Survey of Usage of Penile Prosthesis.

Paul Knoll, Samarpit Rai, Sriharsha Talluri, Adam Bezinque, Ross Micciche, Ganesh Rao, Murali K Ankem

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of sexual medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paul KnollDepartment of Urology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Samarpit RaiDepartment of Urology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Sriharsha TalluriDepartment of Urology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Adam BezinqueDepartment of Urology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Ross MiccicheDepartment of Urology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Ganesh RaoDepartment of Urology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Murali K AnkemDepartment of Urology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA. Electronic address: murali.ankem@louisville.edu.
University of Louisville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) has high success and satisfaction rates, but there remains a paucity of evidence examining non-usage of IPP and reasons for discontinuation.

aimTo identify how frequent patients use their prosthesis and their personal reasons for no longer using it.

methodsWe conducted a survey of all patients who underwent an IPP implantation by a single surgeon over a 6-year period, between 2012 and 2018. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 114 patients formed the final cohort. Patients were initially surveyed via mail with a questionnaire; those who did not respond were surveyed via telephone. The factors determining patient selection for IPP implantation included suitability for general anesthesia, manual dexterity to use the device by the patient or their partner on a demonstration device, and presence of refractory erectile dysfunction, HbA1C lower than 8.5, or need for a revision of a previously placed IPP. Universally, a 3-piece AMS 700 Series implant was placed via the penoscrotal approach. Data were analyzed with Pearson chi square test, and survivability of the device was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival curve. OUTCOMES: The main outcomes of this study are the frequency of IPP usage and reasons for discontinuation.

resultsThe survey participation rate was 97%. The mean age of patient was 64 years (range 34-83 years), and the mean time between surgery and completion of survey was 2.98 years (range 0.25-7.4 years). Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated that 68% of the patients were using the IPP at 5 years after implantation. Using the age 70 years as a cutoff, 18 (22%) patients younger than 70 years and 14 (42%) patients older than 70 years discontinued using the IPP (P = .029). The commonest reasons for discontinuation were poor health to engage in sexual activity (2.6%), loss of companion (19%), loss of interest in sex (2.6%), and device malfunction with no further interest in revision of prosthesis (14%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The clinical implication of this study was improved patient selection for device implantation. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: To our knowledge, no other study has investigated reasons for patients no longer using their prosthesis. Our study has several limitations including that it is a cross-sectional analysis, our survey is not validated, this is a single-surgeon experience, we have a small sample size, and we did not differentiate between virgin implant and reimplantation.

conclusionOur study shows a high rate (28%) of non-usage of IPP, more so in men older than the age of 70 years in the first 5 years of implantation. Knoll P, Rai S, Talluri S, et al. A Survey of Usage of Penile Prosthesis. J Sex Med 2020;17:2287-2290.

Indexed as

Erectile DysfunctionPenile ImplantationPenile ProsthesisAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionProsthesis DesignRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesNon-UsagePenile ProsthesisSatisfaction SurveyUsage

Identifiers

PMID32883632
OpenAlexW3081728225

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.