ReviewAsian journal of andrology2026
Update on penile prosthesis.
Review in Asian journal of andrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Apparent Non-Response to Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors in Erectile Dysfunction: A Narrative Review of Structured Reassessment and Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Update on penile prosthesis.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of penile prostheses (PPs) for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), exploring their historical evolution, types, key advancements, clinical outcomes, and future directions. A comprehensive literature search of studies published in English was conducted between January 2000 and April 2024, using databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Search terms included "penile prosthesis", "penile implants", "malleable penile implant", "inflatable penile prosthesis", "two-piece IPP", "three-piece IPP", and "penile implant advancements". The included studies focused on the development, effectiveness, and complications of penile prostheses. These studies are clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Data were synthesized qualitatively and quantitatively. Penile prostheses have significantly evolved since their invention, with notable advancements in both malleable and inflatable models. Malleable prostheses, known for their simplicity and reliability, offer a semirigid state that is beneficial for patients with limited hand dexterity or those undergoing salvage procedures. Inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs), particularly the three-piece models, have seen substantial technological improvements, including enhanced mechanical reliability, reduced infection rates due to antibiotic coatings, and better patient satisfaction. Key innovations include the development of hydrophilic coatings, parylene microcoatings, and antibiotic-impregnated implants, which have collectively reduced 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.