ArticleBMC urology2026
Successful complex penile prosthesis implant in patients with high risk of fecal contamination: a two case report.
Article in BMC urology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPenile prosthesis implantation in patients at risk of fecal contamination presents a significant infection risk and is rarely reported. CASE PRESENTATION: We report two male patients (aged 26 and 42 years) with refractory erectile dysfunction following multimodal treatment for carcinoma anorectum. One patient had a permanent colostomy after abdominoperineal resection, while the other developed persistent fecal incontinence following low anterior resection. Both failed conservative therapies and underwent malleable penile prosthesis implantation under strict aseptic precautions, including extended skin preparation, isolation of contaminated sites, double draping, and intraoperative antibiotic irrigation. Postoperative recovery was uneventful, with no evidence of infection at 3-month follow-up.
conclusionPenile prosthesis implantation can be safely performed in selected high-risk patients with fecal contamination risk when meticulous perioperative infection control strategies are implemented.
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.