Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38721288›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2024

Penile prosthesis in priapism: a systematic review of outcomes and complications.

David A Velasquez, Paulo Vitor Barreto Guimaraes, Hernan Lescay, Omer Raheem

Abstract 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Top ten surgical tricks-penile prosthesis with corporal fibrosis.International journal of impotence research · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Update on penile prosthesis.Asian journal of andrology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Artificial Intelligence Modeling and Priapism.Current urology reports · 2024
    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

4 authors.

David A VelasquezPritzker School of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6117-116X
Paulo Vitor Barreto GuimaraesSection of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0475-4918
Hernan LescaySection of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4395-1028
Omer RaheemSection of Urology, Department of Surgery, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0995-8107

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Priapism is a rare condition characterized by persistent erection of the penis that lasts more than 4 hours in the absence of sexual stimulation and is associated with significant morbidity and complications, including erectile dysfunction and penile fibrosis. Surgical management of priapism can be extremely challenging. We herein provide a comprehensive review that aims to evaluate the role of penile prosthesis (PP) implantation in the management of priapism. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus to identify studies that evaluated the effectiveness of PP implantation in treating priapism and the long-term complications, outcomes, and patients' satisfaction rate. Results: Out of 717 English-language studies published between 2002 and 2022, 17 were chosen for this review. Majority of patients had a malleable PP (MPP) implant, either early or delayed after the priapism episode. Early placement (EP) of PP is widely defined between studies ranging from less than 72 hours, within 1 week, and within 3 weeks. Most common causes of priapism were sickle cell anemia (SCA), medication-induced, and idiopathic. Studies show a higher satisfaction rate ranging between 80% and 100%, with sexual intercourse achievement ranging between 64.2% and 100%. Based on the GRADE system, included studies rated as very low quality of evidence. Commonly reported complications that arise after PP procedures, include device infection, erosion, curvature, and mechanical malfunction, such as auto-inflation. Conclusions: PP can be an effective treatment option for priapism, particularly in cases of ischemic priapism lasting more than 36 hours or recurrent priapism that is medically refractory. However, due to the very low quality of evidence, larger, well-designed studies are warranted where long-term outcomes, patients' satisfaction, and complications following priapism-related PP implantation are measured as endpoints.

Indexed as

penile implantpenile prosthesis (PP)PP implantationPriapism

Identifiers

PMID38721288
PMCPMC11074681

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.