ArticleCureus2022
Evaluation of Satisfaction and Outcomes of Patients Who Underwent Two-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Narrative Review of Independent Treatment Methods for ED: Assessment of the Effectiveness of Diet, Supplements, Pharmacotherapy, and Physiotherapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Interim Results of Rigicon Penile Prosthesis Implantation in a Single Center: The Largest Series in Türkiye.Urology research & practice · 2025Article
- Comment on: Technological advances in penile implants: past, present, future.International journal of impotence research · 2024Article
- Comparison of satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation in patients with prostate cancer radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The aim of this study was to evaluate patient and partner satisfaction, device reliability, and complications in patients who underwent two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation. Patients and methods The data of 22 patients who underwent two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation in our department between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed, and a detailed review of all clinical reports was performed. Phone or face-to-face interviews were undertaken to assess the satisfaction rates of the patients and their partners using the modified Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire. Results The mean patient age and partner age were 57.95 ± 6.16 and 58.12 ± 6.66 years, respectively. The mean erectile dysfunction (ED) period was 5.33 ± 2.16 years, and the etiologies of erectile dysfunction were radical pelvic surgery (41%), diabetes mellitus (37%), and vascular disorders (22%). The mean operative time and postoperative hospital stay were 102 ± 29 minutes and 1.8 ± 0.66 days, respectively. Over a mean follow-up period of 29.04 ± 14.48 months, two (9%) cases underwent revision surgery due to mechanical device failure in one and infection in the other. The overall patient and partner satisfaction rates were 73% and 59%, respectively. Conclusions The two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis is an effective, reliable, and user-friendly prosthesis with acceptable complication and revision rates and provides a high level of patient and partner satisfaction in selected and fully informed 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.