Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36088578›Full record

ArticleAndrology2022

Which patient may benefit the most from penile prosthesis implantation?

Giovanni La Croce, Nicolò Schifano, Edoardo Pescatori, Enrico Caraceni, Fulvio Colombo, Carlo Bettocchi, Maurizio Carrino, Antonio Vitarelli, Diego Pozza, Stefano Fiordelise and 13 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Andrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Penile prosthesis implantation: a bibliometric-based visualization study.International journal of impotence research · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. IcarifilJournal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 19 institutions in 1 country.

Giovanni La CroceDepartment of Urology, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
Nicolò SchifanoDepartment of Urology, Circolo & Fondazione Macchi Hospital, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Edoardo PescatoriAndrology Service, Hesperia Hospital, Modena, Italy.
Enrico CaraceniDepartment of Urology, Area Vasta 3 Asur Marche, Civitanova Marche, Italy.
Fulvio ColomboAndrology Unit, Sant'Orsola University Hospital, University of Bologna, Italy.
Carlo BettocchiDepartment of Urology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Maurizio CarrinoDepartment of Urology, AORN Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy.
Antonio VitarelliDepartment of Urology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Diego PozzaStudio di Andrologia e di Chirurgia Andrologica, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5931-3226
Stefano FiordeliseAndrology Unit, ASL di Piacenza, Piacenza, Italy.
Francesco VarvelloDepartment of Urology, S. Lazzaro Hospital, Alba, Italy.
Matteo ParadisoDepartment of Urology, Ospedale Cardinal Massaia, Asti, Italy.
Mauro SilvaniDepartment of Urology, Ospedale di Biella, Biella, Italy.
Nicola MondainiDepartment of Urology, Villa Donatello Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Alessandro NataliDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Marco FalconeUrology Clinic, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Carlo CerutiUrology Clinic, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Andrea SaloniaDivision of Experimental Oncology, Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0595-7165
Gabriele AntoniniAntonini Urology, Rome, Italy.
Tommaso CaiDepartment of Urology, Santa Chiara Regional Hospital, Trento, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7234-3526
Alessandro PalmieriDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences, Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Federico DehòDepartment of Urology, Circolo & Fondazione Macchi Hospital, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Paolo CapogrossoDepartment of Urology, Circolo & Fondazione Macchi Hospital, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2347-9504
University of Insubria · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino · ITUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITAzienda Sanitaria Locale CN2 · ITAzienda Sanitaria Locale di Asti · ITAzienda Unità Sanitaria Locale Piacenza · ITFederico II University Hospital · ITHesperia Hospital · ITIRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola · ITL'organizzazione Ospedale di Civitanova M · ITOspedale Antonio Cardarelli · ITOspedale degli Infermi · ITOspedale Papa Giovanni XXIII · ITOspedale Santa Chiara · ITPontifical University Antonianum · ITSocietà Italiana di Cardiologia · ITVilla Torri Hospital · ITVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPenile prosthesis implantation has been associated with overall good functional outcomes. Of relevance, some patients reported higher level of satisfaction and quality of life.

aimWe investigated the profile of the patients who may benefit the most from penile prosthesis implantation. MATERIALS AND

methodsData from a national multi-institutional registry of penile prostheses including patients treated from 2014 to 2017 in Italy (Italian Nationwide Systematic Inventarization of Surgical Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction) were analyzed. All data have been prospectively recorded by 45 surgeons on a dedicated website (www.registro.andrologiaitaliana.it) and revised by a single data manager. Patients' baseline characteristics were recorded. In order to simultaneously evaluate perceived penile prosthesis function and quality of life, all patients were re-assessed at 1-year follow-up using the validated questionnaire Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis. High quality of life after surgery was defined as a score higher than the 75th percentile in each of the subdomains of the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis questionnaire. Logistic regression analysis tested the association between clinical characteristics and high quality of life after penile prosthesis implantation.

resultsFollow-up data were available for 285 patients (median age 60 years; interquartile range: 56-67) who underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Erectile dysfunction etiology was organic in 40% (114), pelvic surgery/radiotherapy in 39% (111), and Peyronie's disease in 21% (60) of the cases. Patients showed good overall Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis scores at 1-year follow-up for functional (22/25), personal (13/15), relational (17/20), and social (13/15) domains. Overall, 27.0% (77) of patients achieved scores consistent with the high quality of life definition. These patients did not differ in terms of median age (60 vs. 62), type of prosthesis (inflatable penile prostheses: 95% in both of the cases), and post-operative complications (10% vs. 14%) than those with lower quality of life score (all p > 0.1). At logistic regression analysis, erectile dysfunction etiology was the only factor independently associated with high quality of life at 1 year after surgery (p = 0.02). Patients treated for Peyronie's disease (odds ratio: 2.62; p = 0.01; 95% confidence interval: 1.20-5.74) were more likely to report better outcomes after accounting for age, post-operative complications, and surgical volume.

conclusionPenile prosthesis implantation is associated with an overall good quality of life. The subset of patients affected by erectile dysfunction secondary to Peyronie's disease seemed to benefit the most from penile prosthesis implantation in terms of functional outcomes, relationship with their partners and the outside world, and perceived self-image. The systematic use of validated questionnaires specifically addressed at evaluating quality of life and satisfaction after penile prosthesis implantation should be further implemented in future studies to better define the predictors of optimal satisfaction after penile prosthesis implantation.

Indexed as

Erectile DysfunctionPenile ImplantationPenile IndurationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of Lifeerectile dysfunctionpenile prosthesis implantationPeyronie's diseasequestionnairesexual satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID36088578
OpenAlexW4295136110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.