Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34295749›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2021

Narrative review of penile prosthetic implant technology and surgical results, including transgender patients.

Michael Polchert, Brian Dick, Omer Raheem

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Update on penile prosthesis.Asian journal of andrology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael PolchertDepartment of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Brian DickDepartment of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Omer RaheemDepartment of Urology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Tulane University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past 40 years, the technological and surgical advancements in penile prostheses have led to increased patient satisfaction rates and decreased complication and infection rates. In cis males with erectile dysfunction (ED), these technological improvements tremendously improve quality of life. In female to male transgender patients, prostheses provide the ability to engage in penetrative intercourse and to urinate standing. This review evaluates technological and surgical advancements in penile prosthetics in the context of documented patient satisfaction and complication rates from prosthesis surgeries. Retrospective studies of penile implant usage in female to male gender-affirming surgeries report that infection and complication rates are higher than those seen in cis males. There are newer prostheses developed specifically for female to male reassignment surgeries, but outcome data is limited. Continued research and development are needed to develop more efficacious penile implantation options for gender affirmation surgery.

Indexed as

penile implantsPenile prosthesis surgerytransgender

Identifiers

PMID34295749
PMCPMC8261434
OpenAlexW3111906584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.