Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40514408›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of impotence research2026

Penile prosthesis implantation: a systematic review of intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Andrea Cocci, Paolo Capogrosso, Suks Minhas, Carlo Bettocchi, Luca Boeri, Joana Carvalho, Nusret Can Cilesiz, Giovanni Corona, Konstantinos Dimitropoulos, Murat Gül and 14 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of impotence research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Andrea Cocci *Department of Urology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. cocci.andrea@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0138-6294
Paolo Capogrosso *Department of Urology and Andrology, Ospedale di Circolo and Macchi Foundation, Varese, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2347-9504
Suks Minhas *Department of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Carlo BettocchiDepartment of Urology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1152-3005
Luca BoeriDepartment of Urology, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0040-784X
Joana CarvalhoCPUP: Center for Psychology of Porto University, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Porto University, Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2362-0010
Nusret Can CilesizDepartment of Urology, Taksim Training & Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2115-698X
Giovanni CoronaEndocrinology Unit, Medical Department, Maggiore-Bellaria Hospital, Bologna, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9894-2885
Konstantinos DimitropoulosAcademic Urology Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Murat GülSchool of Medicine, Department of Urology, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6657-6227
Georgios HatzichristodoulouDepartment of Urology, Martha-Maria Hospital Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3170-7362
Thomas Hugh JonesCentre for Diabetes and Endocrinology, Barnsley Hospital NHS Trust, Barnsley, UK.
Ates KadiogluDepartment of Urology, İstanbul University İstanbul School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4239-7638
Juan Ignatio Martínez SalamancaDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario Puerta del Hierro Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
Uros MilenkovicDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Vaibhav ModgilManchester Andrology Centre, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Giorgio Ivan RussoUrology Section, Department of Surgery, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4687-7353
Ege Can SerefogluDepartment of Urology, Biruni University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2530-7012
Tharu TharakanDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Paolo VerzeDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Scuola Medica Salernitana, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy.
Marco FalconeUrology Clinic, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1101-892X
Afonso MorgadoServiço de Urologia, ULS São João, Porto, Portugal.
Andrea Salonia *Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
EAU Working Group on Male Sexual and Reproductive Health

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the most frequently reported male sexual dysfunction. Penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) is an effective solution for patients with medically refractory ED. Despite advancements in surgical techniques and device technology, detailed evidence on PPI complication rates is limited. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, including literature from Medline, Embase, Cochrane Libraries, and clinicaltrial.gov from 2000 to October 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized comparative studies, and case series with ≥5 participants. Adult male patients (≥18 years) undergoing PPI for ED, Peyronie's disease, or priapism were considered. Eligible interventions included malleable and hydraulic (two- or three-piece) prosthesis implantation, device explantation and reimplantation, and PPI combined with penile curvature correction. Primary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complication rates. Of the 1370 studies initially identified, 151 met inclusion criteria, encompassing a total of 92,777 patients. Device infections were reported in 103 studies, with rates ranging from 0.03-14.3%, predominantly under 5%. Erosion rates spanned 0.02-32.5%, with most studies reporting rates below 5%. Mechanical failure rates were highly variable, exceeding 15% in about half the studies with follow-up periods of 5 to 11 years. Intraoperative complications such as urethral injury and corporeal perforation were uncommon but occurred more frequently in patients with severe fibrosis, including those with priapism. Neurological comorbidities were associated with an elevated risk of mechanical failure, while diabetic patients did not exhibit a significantly increased infection risk compared to the general population. Modern techniques and coated devices have reduced infection and erosion rates. However, mechanical failure remains a concern, emphasizing the need for technological advancements. Tailored device selection and comprehensive pre- and postoperative management are critical to reducing revision rates and improving outcomes. Future research should address gaps in surgical approach optimization and complication management.

Indexed as

Erectile DysfunctionIntraoperative ComplicationsPenile ImplantationPenile ProsthesisPostoperative ComplicationsHumansMalePenile IndurationPriapism

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.