Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39994043›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2025

Cavernous tissue preservation technique versus conventional technique during penile prosthesis implantation: a prospective comparative study.

Mohamed Abdelrahman Alhefnawy, Hazem Abdelsabour Deif, Ahmed Farag Wahsh, Mohamed Gamal Ahmed, Ahmed Mohammed El-Taher, Gamal Abdelmalek Morsy, Alaa Rafaat Mahmoud, Helmy Ahmed Eldib

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Mohamed Abdelrahman AlhefnawyUrology Department, Benha University, Benha, Qalubia, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-6491-055X
Hazem Abdelsabour DeifUrology Department, Al-Azhar University, Asyut, Asyut Governorate, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7281-7528
Ahmed Farag WahshUrology Department, Al-Azhar University, Asyut, Asyut Governorate, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-7633-3506
Mohamed Gamal AhmedUrology Department, Al-Azhar University, Asyut, Asyut Governorate, Egypt.
Ahmed Mohammed El-TaherUrology Department, Asyut University, Asyut, Asyut Governorate, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7868-5749
Gamal Abdelmalek MorsyUrology Department, Al-Azhar University, Asyut, Asyut Governorate, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0521-4698
Alaa Rafaat MahmoudUrology Department, Al-Azhar University, Asyut, Asyut Governorate, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6478-6399
Helmy Ahmed EldibUrology Department, Benha University, Benha, Qalubia, Egypt. drhelmyeldeep@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew prospective studies in literature with long postoperative follow-up compared between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques.

aimTo compare between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques in terms of patient and partner satisfaction and perioperative outcomes.

methodsIn All, 60 Patients with severe erectile dysfunction were randomized into 2 equal groups; patients undergoing conventional malleable penile prosthesis implantation, and patients undergoing the cavernous tissue-sparing technique. Postoperatively, prosthesis function and patient satisfaction were assessed at 6 weeks after surgery and then 3-6 and 12 months using EDITS and QoLSPP questionnaires. Patients were asked about residual penile tumescence. Perioperative data were recorded.

resultsModified EDITS questionnaire after 3,6, and 12 months was 76.9 ± 18, 79 ± 17 and 82.3 ± 16 respectively. As QOLSPP questionnaire, 46 (73.8%) subjects were highly satisfied, 25 patients (83.3%) in cavernous tissue sparing and 21 patients (70.00%) in Conventional group. While 14 (26.2%) were less satisfied, 5 patients (16.7%) Cavernous tissue sparing and 9 patients (30.00%) in Conventional group. In the cavernous tissue-sparing group, 26 of 30 patients (86.6%) reported having a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence versus 2 of 30 patients (6.6%) in the conventional surgery group (P < .001). The age of highly satisfied subjects was significantly lower than those less satisfied (p = 0.025), while the BMI of highly satisfied subjects was significantly lower than those less satisfied (p = 0.001).

conclusionThere is a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence in Cavernous tissue sparing group. Many factors affect male satisfaction rates after PPI as age, and BMI.

Indexed as

Erectile DysfunctionOrgan Sparing TreatmentsPenile ImplantationPenile ProsthesisPenisAdultAgedFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCavernous tissueErectile dysfunctionPenile prosthesisPenile tumescencePenis

Identifiers

PMID39994043
PMCPMC11850506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.