ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2023
Surgical tips in difficult penile prosthetic surgery: a narrative review.
Review in International journal of impotence research, 2023. 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.
- Current evidence on the management of ischaemic priapism post-shunting: a narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Penile Prosthesis Implantation in a Patient With Post-polio Residual Paralysis and Pelvic Deformity: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Top ten surgical tricks-penile prosthesis with corporal fibrosis.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- An update on mechanisms and treatment options for priapism.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile prosthesis implantation continues to represent a reliable solution to address erectile dysfunction when oral medications fail, are not tolerated or are contraindicated, and most typically is associated with excellent satisfaction rates and durable results. Despite the dramatic improvements in the prostheses' design, in the surgical instruments and techniques over the years, certain categories of patients still pose a significant surgical challenge. The aim of the current review is to provide a quick and useful practical guidance based on our expertise in the identification and management of the difficult penile prosthesis implantation cases. A narrative review design was here preferred to fulfil our purpose. The search strategy included a range of terms, e.g. penile prosthesis, corporal fibrosis, infection, ischaemic priapism, Peyronie's disease, radical prostatectomy, pelvic surgery. Extensive corporal fibrosis after explantation of an infected device or after prolonged ischaemic priapism may represent the most difficult situations to deal with in penile prosthesis implantation surgery. Penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie's disease and in those who previously underwent radical prostatectomy also presents with an increased risk of complications. Experienced surgeons need to be able to recognise promptly and manage urethral perforation, cylinder crossover, tunical perforation and erosion, as these complications are more common when dealing with difficult penile prosthesis implantation cases. Applying penile lengthening techniques and principles can be useful in selected cases to ensure better postoperative satisfaction rates, especially in those patients who have experienced a more significant degree of loss of length preoperatively. High-volume-implanting surgeons should always be involved in complex cases to minimise the risk of complications. A thorough preoperative counselling can set realistic patients' expectations in this context, further contributing to postoperative satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36261536What 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.