ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2024
A multicenter investigation examining timing of penile prosthesis infection management and responsible organisms.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Infection prevention strategies in penile prosthesis implantation: a narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Narrative review of immediate salvage for penile prosthesis infection.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the timing of penile prosthesis infection management by different responsible organisms. A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who underwent penile prosthesis salvage or explant procedures due to a suspected infection between 2001 and 2018. The cohort consisted of 216 patients from 33 different facilities and six countries. The most common primary organisms responsible for device infections included, Gram-positives (31.5%), no growth cultures (30.6%), Gram-negatives (22.2%), fungal (11.6%), and anaerobic organisms (4.2%). Overall, median time to infection was 1.8 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.0-3.0) months for all patients. Median time to infection management was similar between responsible organisms: 1.0 (IQR: 1.0-2.3) months for Gram-negatives and 2 months for Gram-positives (IQR: 1.0-1.4), fungal (IQR: 1.0-5.0), anaerobes (IQR: 1.0-2.5), and no growth cultures (IQR: 1.0-3.0, p = 0.56). Median time to infection management was significantly shorter among patients who received aminoglycoside/vancomycin prophylaxis (1.5 months, IQR: 1.0-2.5, p < 0.01) compared to other antibiotic groups. Median time to infection management was significantly longer for patients managed with a three-piece inflatable implant salvage procedure (2.8 months, IQR: 1.0-5.0, p = 0.02) compared to other salvage procedures. Conventional wisdom surrounding early versus late penile prosthesis infections should largely be abandoned. More than half of penile prosthesis infections are surgically managed within 2 months of initial device placement.
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.