ReviewCurrent urology reports2026
Cost Considerations in Penile Implantation Revision Surgery from a Global Perspective.
Review in Current urology reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewPenile prosthesis revision surgery represents a critical yet underexplored aspect of men’s health care. While primary penile prosthesis implantation offers a durable solution for erectile dysfunction unresponsive to medical therapy, complications such as infection, mechanical failure, and patient dissatisfaction often necessitate revision procedures. These surgeries are inherently more complex than primary implantations, requiring greater perioperative resources and incurring higher costs. This review synthesizes global evidence on the economic implications of penile prosthesis revision surgery, with a focus on clinical, procedural, and systemic cost drivers. RECENT
findingsEvidence from both urologic and analogous surgical fields highlights the heightened resource utilization and complication rates associated with revision procedures, particularly in the presence of infection or corporal fibrosis. Device-related considerations, institutional capacity, and healthcare policy play significant roles in determining cost and accessibility. Variations in insurance coverage and access across health systems further underscore disparities in timely and equitable care. Comparative data also demonstrate that revision surgeries carry greater perioperative complexity and higher healthcare expenditure than primary implantations. Penile prosthesis revision surgery should be recognized as a distinct and necessary component of sexual medicine services. Risk-adjusted reimbursement models, improved procedural coding, and regionalization of care to high-volume centers are recommended to optimize outcomes and control costs. Addressing disparities in access and ensuring cost-conscious delivery will be essential for advancing equitable and effective care in this field.
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.