ArticleWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2026
Restoring sexual health and relationship quality through penile prosthesis implantation.
Article in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundErectile dysfunction (ED) following radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common and challenging complication that often does not respond to first- or second-line therapies. Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation offers a definitive solution, particularly in refractory cases. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a young patient with ED following RP for prostate cancer. After unsuccessful medical treatments, the patient underwent implantation of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), resulting in high patient satisfaction, restoration of sexual function, and improved psychosocial well-being. DISCUSSION: The choice of prosthesis type should be individualized, considering patient factors such as manual dexterity, comorbidities, and anatomy. Both IPP and semirigidPP devices provide excellent outcomes but require careful counseling regarding expectations, device operation, and potential complications. Advances in surgical techniques have significantly reduced infection and mechanical failure rates. Despite satisfactory outcomes, penile prostheses remain underutilized due to barriers to access and delayed referral.
conclusionPenile prosthesis implantation should be offered to patients with ED refractory to first- or second-line treatments. Earlier referral, comprehensive patient education, and integration into survivorship care are essential, especially for younger post-cancer patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42247038What 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.