ArticleBJUI compass2025
Current attitudes to testicular prosthesis insertion during radical orchidectomy-An international perspective.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess current international clinician practices, attitudes and barriers related to testicular prosthesis implantation in patients with testicular cancer at the time of radical inguinal orchidectomy. Methods: An international online survey of urologists who perform radical orchidectomy for testicular cancer was developed. The recruitment process used social media and the emailing lists of national urological societies. Responses were collected between 10 February 2021 and 31 May 2021. The primary outcome was the proportion of urologists who always offered testicular prosthesis implantation to patients undergoing radical orchidectomy. Secondary outcomes included the reasons for not offering testicular prosthesis implantation. Results: A total of 393 respondents took part in the online survey; of these, the majority were from the UK (66%), with the remaining international respondents (34%) from six different continents. Urologists (53%) reported they always offer testicular prosthesis implantation. Of those that offered testicular prosthesis implantation, 28% did so as a secondary procedure after radical orchidectomy, rather than the time of radical orchidectomy (72%). The most frequently selected reasons for not offering testicular prosthesis implantation included concerns about delaying chemotherapy (41%), infection (33%), impaired cosmesis (17%) and lack of availability (17%). Conclusion: Despite evidence confirming the safety and the psychological benefit of testicular prosthesis implantation during radical orchidectomy, current international practice suggests just over half of urologists always offer this to their patients. Increased clinician awareness of the low risk of complications and high patient satisfaction may act to reduce the perceived barriers in offering testicular prosthesis implantation.
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.