ReviewThe Canadian journal of urology2025
Review of techniques and approaches for ectopic reservoir placement in inflatable penile implant.
Review in The Canadian 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.
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.
- Recognition to repair: Managing reservoir complications in inflatable penile prosthesis surgery.BJUI compass · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is the gold standard treatment for patients with erectile dysfunction who are refractory to medical therapy. The standard placement of the reservoir in the space of Retzius (SOR) may be contraindicated in patients with prior pelvic or abdominal surgery due to altered anatomy and increased risk of complications. This has led to the development of alternative ectopic reservoir placement techniques. In this narrative review, we summarize the literature on various ectopic reservoir approaches, including low and high submuscular placements, submuscular techniques with counter incisions or transfascial fixation, midline submuscular placement, subcutaneous placement, and lateral retroperitoneal approaches. We describe the surgical methods, outcomes, and complication rates associated with each technique. While most methods demonstrate low complication and revision rates, direct comparisons remain limited due to heterogeneity and lack of prospective data. This review highlights the importance of individualized technique selection based on prior surgical history, body habitus, and surgeon experience. As ectopic placement becomes more widely adopted, familiarity with multiple approaches is essential for prosthetic surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40567091What 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.