Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Comment on: “Surgeon variations in the perioperative evaluation of penile prosthesis patients”

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 35, pages 170–171 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Performing prosthetic surgical procedures in urology and more specific penile implant surgery is so much more than just a surgical act. The final goal should be delivering high quality of care which implies ultimately the patients benefit. Thus, much more focus should be given on attempts to improve this outcome. Most of the available literature on penile implant surgery is mainly based on case series, a fact which led to present guidelines being by definition empirical. Therefore, objective evidence-based conclusions are lacking in order to allow us to report more robust outcomes. In this perspective, the article “Surgeons variations in the perioperative evaluation of penile prosthesis patients” by Barham et al. [1] could be one stone contributing to build a wall of evidence-based guidelines regarding penile implant surgery.

The importance of the present study cannot be underestimated. The authors finger point many important messages and they do that by conducting a broad survey on 122 urologists and by evaluating numerous interesting parameters: surgeon sexes, geographical factors, training background, number of cases performed, sexual orientation of patients, kind of sexual activity, etc. Their conclusion that there is “much room for improvement” seems completely justified.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Barham DW, Chen IK, Reeves A, Chung E, Reisman Y, Gross M, et al. Surgeons variations in the peri-operative evaluation of penile prosthesis patients. Int J Impot Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00521-9.

  2. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence. Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2:80–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van Renterghem K, Ghazi A. Surgical education in the 21st century: Implications for sexual medicine. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:544–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van Renterghem K, Ghazi A. 3-D pelvic cadaver model: a novel approach to surgical training for penile implant surgery. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:261–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van Renterghem K. Lessons learned from 25 years of penile prosthetic surgery. J Vis Surg. 2019;5:73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Urology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium

    Koenraad van Renterghem

  2. Dept. of Urology, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium

    Koenraad van Renterghem

  3. Dept. of Urology, University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium

    Koenraad van Renterghem

  4. Dept. of Urology, Aristotle University Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Ioannis Mykoniatis

Authors
  1. Koenraad van Renterghem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ioannis Mykoniatis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KvR: concept, writing, and editing article. IM: assisting in writing article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koenraad van Renterghem.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Renterghem, K., Mykoniatis, I. Comment on: “Surgeon variations in the perioperative evaluation of penile prosthesis patients”. Int J Impot Res 35, 170–171 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00546-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00546-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links