ReviewUrology2020
Minimizing Penile Prosthesis Implant Infection: What Can We Learn From Orthopedic Surgery?
Review in Urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plan-Do-Check-Action Circulation Combined with Accelerated Rehabilitation Nursing under Computed Tomography in Prevention and Control of Hospital Infection in Elderly Patients Undergoing Elective Orthopedic Surgery.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Trial
- Successful salvage of an inflatable penile prosthesis following aseptic ischemic scrotal necrosis using a pedicled SCIP flap: a case report.Urology case reports · 2026Article
- Delayed delivery of antibiotics by ultrasound-mediated rupture of polylactic acid pockets: In vitro and in vivo studies.PloS one · 2025Article
- Response to the Commentary on: Does time of intraoperative exposure to the aerobiome increase microbial growth on inflatable penile prostheses?International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- Emerging strategies for the prevention of bacterial biofilm in prosthetic surgery.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Narrative review of immediate salvage for penile prosthesis infection.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Addressing the need for preclinical study of penile prosthesis infection: a new animal model and narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Biofilm review highlights need for new research.Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
- A scoping review of penile implant biofilms-what do we know and what remains unknown?Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
- Environmental, Microbiological, and Immunological Features of Bacterial Biofilms Associated with Implanted Medical Devices.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022Review
- Making waves: how ultrasound-targeted drug delivery is changing pharmaceutical approaches.Materials advances · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The implantation of penile protheses for the surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction has risen in popularity over the past several decades. Considerable advances have been made in surgical protocol and device design, specifically targeting infection prevention. Despite these efforts, device infection remains a critical problem, which causes significant physical and emotional burden to the patient. The aim of this review is to broaden the discussion of best practices by not only examining practices in urology, but additionally delving into the field of orthopedic surgery to identify techniques and approaches that may be applied to penile prothesis surgery.
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.