ArticleCureus2024
Overcoming Challenges in Retrieving an Encapsulated Rear Tip Extensor During Conversion From Malleable to Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A Case Report and Review of Literature.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is generally regarded as a safe procedure, with low rates of complications. However, when complications do arise, they can pose significant challenges to both patients and surgeons. Patient optimization and adherence to specific intraoperative protocols are crucial in mitigating the risk of surgical complications. Standardization of intraoperative management, including the administration of intravenous antibiotics, meticulous aseptic techniques, and antibiotic irrigation of the prosthesis, is paramount. Furthermore, having the appropriate set of instruments can reduce operative time and minimize tissue manipulation. While the literature predominantly focuses on outcomes such as infection, prosthesis malfunction, corporal perforation, and penile length loss, reports on managing retained prosthetic components are rare. This uncommon complication raises important considerations regarding whether foreign bodies should be left in place or removed during revision penile prosthetic surgeries. We present the case of a 49-year-old male who underwent IPP insertion. Following complications due to infection, salvage penile prosthetic surgery was performed 38 days after penile prosthesis insertion, using a temporary malleable implant. Subsequently, eight months later, the patient underwent surgery for the replacement of the malleable implant with an IPP. During the replacement procedure, the right-side malleable component was removed easily, while the left-side component was discovered to have the rear tip missing. Removal attempts using intracorporeal rigid cystoscopy and graspers were unsuccessful, necessitating a perineal counter incision for retrieval. After successfully removing the encapsulated extensor, a new IPP was successfully placed without complications.
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.