ReviewTherapeutic advances in urology
State-of-art review of current malleable penile prosthesis devices in the commercial market.
Review in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline of guidelines: a scoping review on comparison of major clinical guidelines for erectile dysfunction.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Cost Considerations in Penile Implant Surgery from a Global Perspective.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Update on penile prosthesis.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Review
- An update on penile prostheses: a narrative review.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Review
- New materials and complications of prostheses in humans: situation in Spain.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2024Review
- Overcoming barriers to immediate penile implant salvage surgery: a narrative review.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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The malleable penile implant is often considered an inferior device to the three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implant. Nonetheless, the malleable prosthesis has its unique advantages such as lower cost, easier to perform and fewer mechanical complications than inflatable prostheses. Furthermore, its role can be extended to patients with issues relating to poor manual hand dexterity, those undergoing a salvage for infection prosthesis and as an emergency surgical measure in patients presenting with acute ischaemic priapism. Over the past few decades, there have been numerous design and technological advancements to improve overall clinical efficacy, mechanical durability, axial rigidity and device concealability of malleable penile prostheses. The following article provides a narrative review of the six major contemporary malleable penile prosthesis devices in the commercial market, namely, the Coloplast Genesis prosthesis, the Boston Scientific Tactra prosthesis, the Zephyr ZSI 100 and 100 (female-to-male) FTM devices, the Rigi10 prosthesis, the TUBE malleable prosthesis and the Shah prosthesis and evaluates the published outcomes. Appropriate patient selection and strict counselling regarding what to expect with malleable prostheses coupled with adherence to safe surgical principles are paramount to ensure excellent clinical success and patient satisfaction rates.
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.