Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40940535›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of impotence research2026

Removal rate and mechanical failure in penile prosthesis implantation: A systematic review.

Mattia Lo Re, Marta Pezzoli, Andrea Cocci, Anna Cadenar, Andrea Minervini, Esther Garcia Rojo, Innocent Nzeyimana, Javier Romero Otero, Manuel Alonso Isa, Borja Garcia Gomez

Abstract 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. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

10 authors.

Mattia Lo Re *Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Marta Pezzoli *Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Andrea CocciDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0138-6294
Anna CadenarDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Andrea MinerviniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Esther Garcia RojoDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, Instituto Investigación Sanitaria HM Hospitales and ROC Clinic, Madrid, Spain.
Innocent NzeyimanaMBC Hospital, Kigali, Rwanda.
Javier Romero OteroDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, Instituto Investigación Sanitaria HM Hospitales and ROC Clinic, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0666-5105
Manuel Alonso IsaDepartment of Urology, Hospital Universitario HM Puerta del Sur, Instituto Investigación Sanitaria HM Hospitales and ROC Clinic, Madrid, Spain.
Borja Garcia GomezDepartment of Urology, 12 de Octubre University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. borjagarciagomez@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1071-3656

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Erectile dysfunction affects around 40% of men and is increasingly prevalent with age and comorbid conditions like cardiovascular disease and depression. Inflatable penile prostheses could be considered one of the definitive treatments for this condition. This systematic review aims to compare the safety and durability of AMS 700® (Boston Scientific), Coloplast Titan® (Coloplast), Rigicon Infla 10® (Rigicon), and Zephyr ZSI 475® (Zephyr) inflatable penile prostheses, focusing on infection rates, removals, and mechanical failures. A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. The search identified studies on penile prostheses safety and patient satisfaction. Inclusion criteria were studies on adult males undergoing three-component penile prosthesis implantation for erectile dysfunction reporting data on removal rates, causes, and mechanical failures. Studies on implantation of two-component or malleable penile prosthesis were excluded. After the screening, 30 studies published between 1994 and 2023 were included. The median follow-up duration ranged from 12 to 206 months. Removal rates ranged from 0% to 52.9%, generally below 10%, with infection rates typically under 5%. AMS 700® devices had removal rates from 0.3% to 52.9%, while Coloplast Titan® devices ranged from 0% to 6.2%. Rigicon Infla 10® showed a low mechanical failure rate of 2-3% over short follow-up periods. Zephyr ZSI 475® had high initial mechanical failure rates (25.7%). Mechanical failures varied widely, with AMS® reporting rates from 0 to 37.3%, Coloplast Titan® from 0 to 9.1% but with median shorter follow-up durations. Most inflatable penile prostheses demonstrate good long-term tolerance and durability. While AMS 700® and Coloplast Titan® prostheses are well-established, the low mechanical failure rates of the Rigicon Infla 10®, although promising, need to be confirmed by further studies with a longer follow-up. Preliminary Zephyr® data are inconclusive but highlight the need for further evaluations. Rigorous long-term follow-up and comparative studies are essential to confirm these findings and guide clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Device RemovalErectile DysfunctionPenile ImplantationPenile ProsthesisProsthesis FailureHumansMalePatient Satisfaction

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.