ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2024
Recent technological development of penile prosthesis: a literature review.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Penile prosthesis implantation: a systematic review of intraoperative and postoperative complications.International journal of impotence research · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy, reliability, and patient satisfaction with Rigicon Infla10 X and Infla10 AX inflatable penile prostheses: a retrospective single-center analysis.Sexual medicine · 2026Article
- Preoperative penoscrotal swab microbiology and postoperative infection concordance in malleable penile prosthesis surgery: A prospective randomized study of skin antisepsis.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Ectopic Placement of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Pump into the Mons Fat Pad for Patients with Difficulty Reaching Their Scrotum: A Case Series.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Infection prevention strategies in penile prosthesis implantation: a narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Commentary on: Long-term experience with AMS-700 CXR inflatable penile prosthesis in high-risk patients with corporal fibrosis.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- Interim Results of Rigicon Penile Prosthesis Implantation in a Single Center: The Largest Series in Türkiye.Urology research & practice · 2025Article
- MR imaging of penile pathology and prostheses.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: In contemporary Urology, the gold standard for treatment of erectile dysfunction refractory to medical therapy has been implantation with a penile prosthesis. The past 40 years has witnessed evolutions in technology and surgical techniques, which have led to increased patient satisfaction rates and decreased complication and infection rates. This review is an update to a prior review article that evaluates these advancements in the context of patient satisfaction and different rates of complications following surgeries. In addition, the review compares malleable and inflatable prostheses with regard to infection rate, mechanical failure rate, and erosion rate. Methods: A literature search was conducted using Medline and Google Scholar to examine papers from 1973 to the present day. Keywords, such as, "penile prosthesis surgery", "malleable penile prosthesis", "inflatable penile prosthesis", "two-piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP)", and "three-piece IPP" were utilized during the search. A total of 76 papers were included, and all were in English. Key Content and Findings: Studies on the latest models of each of the three prostheses (malleable, two-piece IPP, three-piece IPP) revealed patient satisfaction ratings at or above 75%. Both types of IPPs were associated with greater satisfaction and lower erosion rates while malleable prostheses were associated with lower mechanical failure rates. Although no significant differences in infection rates were noted between the prosthesis types, a history of diabetes, obesity, and smoking were predictive of infection events. Conclusions: The three-piece IPP, if indicated for a suitable patient, is generally accepted as the best type of prosthesis given its biological mimicry to an erect human penis.
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.