ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2021
[The "right" patient for implant surgery in urology : Why patient selection, informed consent, and communication are so important for patient satisfaction].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Penile implant surgery in Germany-effective, established, yet underused].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In implant surgery for erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, adequate patient selection is essential for postoperative therapy success. Several scientific studies report patient satisfaction rates for penile implants and artificial urinary sphincter implantation of over 90%. Nevertheless, studies also report, that between 5 and 30% of the patients are not satisfied with the result of their operation. Sufficient patient information and consent prior surgical procedure in urological prosthetics are a key determinant for later patient satisfaction and therapy success. Diligent assessment of realistic expectations, possible complications, and risks must be made. Unrealistic and exaggerated expectations need to be met and discussed with the patient. Therefore adequate physician-patient communication is essential. Especially in the case of surgical revision or for patients with risk factors, the probability of complications is higher and may significantly increase later dissatisfaction. Also, the involvement of the partner plays a major role in later patient satisfaction in urological implant surgery. Finally, there is a group of patients for which the risk of later dissatisfaction is particularly high. These are patients with compulsive/obsessive behavior, unrealistic expectations, patients after revision surgery, self-entitled patients, as well as those patients who deny the extent of their illness, visit multiple surgeons (surgeon hopping) or have psychiatric illnesses. These patients are referred to with the acronym "CURSED" patients.
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.