ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology
The outcomes of penile prosthesis in neurologic patients: a multicentric retrospective series.
Article 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Penile prosthesis implantation: a systematic review of intraoperative and postoperative complications.International journal of impotence research · 2026Pooled it
- Letter to the editor for the article "Functional and surgical outcomes after phalloplasty in cis men".World journal of urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Neurological disease is a known entity for causing erectile dysfunction (ED). Pharmacological therapies are not always effective these patients - penile prosthesis implant (PPI) is an established surgical treatment option. For a variety of reasons, neurological patients may experience differing outcomes of PPI compared to those whose ED arises from other causes. We investigated outcomes of PPI in neurological patients using the Italian multi-institutional national registry of penile prostheses [Italian Nationwide Systematic Inventarization of Surgical Treatment for ED (INSIST-ED)]. Methods: Patients undergoing PPI were investigated Results: A total of 33 patients were included with a median age of 49 [interquartile range (IQR) 41-55]. Median follow-up was 83 months (IQR 67-99.5). A penoscrotal approach for PPI was performed in most cases (90.9%), while infrapubic was used in three cases (9.1%). Inflatable and malleable devices were implanted in 30 (90.9%) and 3 cases (9.1%), respectively. Intraoperative complications occurred in one case (3%). Early postoperative complications (<90 days) were observed in three cases (9.1%): two wound dehiscence (Clavien-Dindo G1 and G3a respectively) and one device infection requiring prosthesis explant (Clavien-Dindo G3a). Mechanical failures of inflatable devices were not observed during the follow-up period. Median IIEF-5 before surgery was 8 (IQR 7-9). At the latest follow-up, IIEF-5 was 22 (IQR 19-23.5), and median EDITS was 79 (IQR 64-88). A total of 28 patients (84.8%) self-reported to be fully satisfied with the PPI. Conclusion: Although PPI in the neurological population has been historically considered to be at increased risk, in our study, PPI complications and infections rates in this cohort did not differ from general population.
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.