ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2026
Subcutaneous penile silicone sleeve implants for penile augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subcutaneous silicone penile sleeve implants, including Penuma and Himplant, are used to increase flaccid penile dimensions and for selected reconstructive indications, but the magnitude of dimensional change and complication profile have not been systematically quantified. This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis evaluated clinical outcomes after Penuma/Himplant implantation. Cohort studies with clearly defined denominators and extractable outcome data were included in the quantitative synthesis, whereas reports addressing special indications or complications were summarized narratively. Twelve publications from 2018 to 2026 met the inclusion criteria, of which four cohort studies were suitable for primary meta-analysis. The pooled mean increase was 3.77 cm in flaccid girth and 2.94 cm in flaccid length. Pooled complication rates were 3.03% for infection, 5.03% for seroma, 5.12% for erosion or implant exposure, 3.53% for revision, and 7.08% for explantation or implant removal. These descriptive findings are limited to flaccid penile dimensions and do not establish comparative effectiveness; data on erect dimensions and patient-reported outcomes were limited, with validated instruments rarely used. Prospective comparative studies using standardized penile measurements, formal psychological assessment, validated outcome instruments, and longer follow-up are required.
Identifiers
42834144What 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.