Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36977850›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2023

Technological advances in penile implants: past, present, future.

Emily May, Meg Hanley, John J Mulcahy, Martin S Gross

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Reservoir placement and surgical considerations: A narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Penile length preservation in penile prosthesis placement: tips & tricks.International journal of impotence research · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emily May *Dartmouth College Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3989-5329
Meg Hanley *Dartmouth College Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA.
John J MulcahyDepartment of Urology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Martin S GrossSection of Urology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA. martin.s.gross@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2716-8642

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attempts to "cure" erectile dysfunction (ED) are as old as recorded history. The history of penile prosthetic devices dates back over 500 years, when a French military surgeon designed the first known wooden prosthesis to support micturition. There have since been a great many technological advancements in penile prosthetics. Penile implants for the improvement of sexual function date to the twentieth century. Like all human endeavors, penile prosthesis innovations have progressed via trial and error. This review aims to provide an overview of penile prostheses for the treatment of ED since their introduction in 1936. More specifically, we aim to highlight important advances in penile prosthesis development and discuss dead ends that were abandoned. Highlights include two-piece inflatables, three-piece inflatables, and malleable/semirigid, along with modifications and updates to each basic design that improved both insertion and usability. Dead ends include innovative ideas that were lost to history due to a variety of factors. We also look to the future and discuss expected advances, including remotely activated devices and prostheses designed for special populations, including transgender men.

Indexed as

Erectile DysfunctionPenile ImplantationPenile ProsthesisTransgender PersonsTranssexualismFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

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.