ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2026
Agreement between an anatomy-based inflatable penile prosthesis configuration algorithm and expert surgeon decision-making: a virtual case study.
Article 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inflatable penile prosthesis configuration remains highly variable among surgeons, with decisions often guided by individual experience rather than standardized criteria. We evaluated agreement between the Canguven Penile Prosthesis Calculator (an anatomy-based decision-support tool) and experienced penile prosthesis surgeons to characterize inter-surgeon variability using a standardized virtual-case model. A total of 60 cases were constructed incorporating total corporal length, proximal corporal length, scrotal size, and predefined prosthesis model (AMS 700 CX™, Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA, USA; Titan™, Coloplast Corporation, Minneapolis MN, USA; and Infla10™, Rigicon Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY, USA). A total of 7 experienced penile prosthesis surgeons from 6 institutions independently evaluated the cases, blinded to calculator recommendations, and selected cylinder length, rear-tip extender, and reservoir volume, generating 340 surgeon-case decisions. Agreement was assessed using exact agreement, clinically acceptable agreement (±1 cylinder size), and kappa statistics. Exact agreement between calculator recommendations and surgeon-selected cylinder length was observed in 198 of 340 decisions (58.2%), increasing to 302 of 340 decisions (88.8%) within a clinically acceptable range. The mean absolute difference was 0.95 ± 1.18 cm, with discrepancies greater than 2 cm observed in 38 of 340 decisions (11.2%). Inter-rater agreement was moderate (Fleiss' κ = 0.46, 95% CI 0.41-0.51), and pairwise agreement between the calculator and individual surgeons ranged from κ = 0.43 to 0.55. Reservoir selection demonstrated excellent agreement (329/340 decisions, 96.8%). Variability in prosthesis configuration decisions was primarily driven by differences in rear-tip extender utilization, reflecting consistent but distinct surgeon-specific strategies. Inflatable penile prosthesis configuration demonstrates substantial variability among experienced surgeons, although most differences fall within clinically acceptable limits. The anatomy-based algorithm demonstrated moderate agreement with expert surgeon selections and may provide a structured, anatomy-based framework for prosthesis configuration planning while preserving individualized surgical decision-making.
Identifiers
42618764What 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.