Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41193867›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2026

Early penile prosthesis implantation in refractory ischaemic priapism: a narrative review.

Ross Calopedos, Davide Trubbia, David Ralph, Wai Gin Lee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Ross CalopedosEast Sydney Private Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Davide TrubbiaDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-4267-0102
David RalphDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Wai Gin LeeDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK. waigin.lee@andrology.co.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2199-5364

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ischaemic priapism (IP) is a urological emergency that can lead to permanent erectile dysfunction (ED) and penile deformity if not promptly managed. Refractory ischaemic priapism (RIP), defined as IP persisting beyond 48 hours despite conventional interventions, necessitates a paradigm shift in treatment strategy. Early penile prosthesis (PP) implantation offers a proactive approach in surgical management to preserve penile function while minimising complications associated with delayed surgery. This review synthesises current evidence on early PP insertion for RIP, evaluating its advantages over delayed intervention. We examine the pathophysiological progression of IP, emphasising corporal smooth muscle necrosis and penile fibrosis, which render erectile function recovery unlikely even with successful detumescence. Limitations of shunting procedures are also discussed and emerging diagnostic tools highlighted, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for assessing irreversible corporal damage. Comparative analysis of early versus delayed PP insertion reveals superior patient satisfaction, lower revision rates, reduced penile shortening, and fewer perioperative complications with early implantation. Device selection, operative techniques, and risk mitigation strategies are also explored. Our findings support early PP implantation as the preferred management strategy for RIP, aligning with international guidelines. Further research is warranted to refine surgical protocols and optimise patient outcomes.

Indexed as

IschemiaPenile ImplantationPenile ProsthesisPenisPriapismErectile DysfunctionHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID41193867
PMCPMC13581602

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.