Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38404551›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2024

Recent technological development of penile prosthesis: a literature review.

Jay Patel, Basil Zakkar, Michael Polchert, Jacob Tannenbaum, Brian Dick, Omer Raheem

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. MR imaging of penile pathology and prostheses.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Review
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jay PatelPritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Basil ZakkarDepartment of Urology, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Michael PolchertTulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Jacob TannenbaumTulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Brian DickUniversity California San Francisco, Department of Urology, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Omer RaheemDepartment of Urology, The University of Chicago Medical Center, Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Tulane University · USIllinois College · USUniversity of Chicago · USUniversity of Chicago Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP)malleable penile prosthesispenile implantsPenile prosthesis surgery

Identifiers

PMID38404551
PMCPMC10891389
OpenAlexW4391226900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.