ArticleAndrologia2021
Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score-matched comparison.
Article in Andrologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Depression and anxiety are associated with increased complications after penile prosthesis surgery: a retrospective cohort study.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Cost Considerations in Penile Implantation Revision Surgery from a Global Perspective.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- High flow priapism following the insertion of an inflatable penile prosthesis mimicking autoinflation: a case report.International journal of impotence research · 2024Review
- Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score-matched comparison.Andrologia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) provides excellent outcomes after virgin implants. However, few data on IPP after revision surgery are available. This study aimed at comparing the outcomes of IPP in patients undergoing primary or revision implant surgery. Patients who underwent revision implant surgery (Group 1) between 2013 and 2020 were identified. Overall, 20 patients (Group 1) could be matched with a contemporary matched pair cohort of surgery-naive patients (Group 2) in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in Group 2 had a significantly shorter operative time [median (IQR): 84 (65-97) vs. 65 (51-75) min; p = .01] and lower rate of overall complications (25% vs. 10%; p = .01). Of note, mean (SD) scores for the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaire demonstrated high satisfaction and IPP efficacy in both Groups 1 and 2: functional domain [3.9 (1.0) vs. 4.0 (1.2); p = .4], personal [3.9 (1.1) vs. 4.0 (1.1); p = .3], relational [3.8 (1.3) vs. 3.9 (1.1); p = .5] and social [3.9 (1.1) vs. 4.0 (1.2); p = .2]. These results suggest that in experienced hands, IPP offers high satisfaction to both patients and partners even in the setting of revision implant. However, it is mandatory to inform those patients about the increased risk of perioperative complications.
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.