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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Penile prosthesis implantation: a bibliometric-based visualization study

Abstract

The treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) using penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) has recently garnered significant interest, but reports of bibliometric analyses of studies on PPI have yet to appear. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to use visualization techniques to statistically and qualitatively assess the state of knowledge, current research topics, and trends in this field. The Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) was searched for publications about PPI from the inception of the database to 2023. VOSviewer (version 1.6.19), CiteSpace (version 6.2. R2), and Excel (version 2021) were used for the data analysis. The results show a total of 1015 original articles and reviews on PPI published over this nearly 50 years, with an increasing trend in the number of studies published each year. The United States is the country with the most published studies (n = 578). Mayo Clinic is the organization with the most publications overall (n = 46). The Journal of Sexual Medicine has the most publications (n = 184). The most prolific author is Wilson, Steven K (n = 31). The most commonly used terms were erectile dysfunction (n = 509), penile prosthesis (n = 332), implantation (n = 207), satisfaction (n = 201), surgery (n = 200), infection (n = 134), outcomes (n = 128), Peyronie’s disease (n = 121), men (n = 115), and experience (n = 109). Current research focuses on four main areas: complications of PPI, the current status of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), the use of PPI in radical prostatectomy and Peyronie’s disease populations, and patient satisfaction after PPI. Improving patient satisfaction with PPI through improved mechanical design and surgical techniques is a key concern for future research.

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

Access options

Buy this article

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

Fig. 1: The annual number of publications in the research from 1975 to 2023.
Fig. 2: Contributions of various countries to the research of PPI.
Fig. 3: Authors related to the research on PPI.
Fig. 4: The institution’s co-authorship network of PPI.
Fig. 5: The bibliometric analysis of all keywords in the field of PPI.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data analyzed in this study can be obtained from the Web of Science database using the search keywords and procedures described in the “Methods” section. The raw search results and bibliometric data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. 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 

  2. Chung E, Van CT, Wilson I, Cartmill RA. Penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment for male erectile dysfunction: clinical outcomes and lessons learnt after 955 procedures. World J Urol. 2013;31:591–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mark KP, Arenella K, Girard A, Herbenick D, Fu J, Coleman E. Erectile dysfunction prevalence in the United States: report from the 2021 National Survey of Sexual Wellbeing. J Sex Med. 2024;21:296–303.

  4. Ayta IA, McKinlay JB, Krane RJ. The likely worldwide increase in erectile dysfunction between 1995 and 2025 and some possible policy consequences. BJU Int. 1999;84:50–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Edwards D, Hackett G, Collins O, Curram J. Vardenafil improves sexual function and treatment satisfaction in couples affected by erectile dysfunction (ED): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in PDE5 inhibitor-naïve men with ED and their partners. J Sex Med. 2006;3:1028–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nagao K, Ishii N, Kamidono S, Osada T. Safety and efficacy of vardenafil in patients with erectile dysfunction: result of a bridging study in Japan. Int J Urol. 2004;11:515–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McMahon CN, Smith CJ, Shabsigh R. Treating erectile dysfunction when PDE5 inhibitors fail. Bmj. 2006;332:589–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Raina R, Lakin MM, Thukral M, Agarwal A, Ausmundson S, Montague DK, et al. Long-term efficacy and compliance of intracorporeal (IC) injection for erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy: SHIM (IIEF-5) analysis. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15:318–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tao R, Chen J, Wang D, Li Y, Xiang J, Xiong L, et al. The Efficacy of Li-ESWT Combined With VED in Diabetic ED Patients Unresponsive to PDE5is: A Single-Center, Randomized Clinical Trial. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:937958.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cunningham GR, Stephens-Shields AJ, Rosen RC, Wang C, Bhasin S, Matsumoto AM, et al. Testosterone Treatment and Sexual Function in Older Men With Low Testosterone Levels. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101:3096–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2,384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1074–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mulhall J, Anderson M, Parker M. A surgical algorithm for men with combined Peyronie’s disease and erectile dysfunction: functional and satisfaction outcomes. J Sex Med. 2005;2:132–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int. 2006;97:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jorissen C, De Bruyna H, Baten E, Van Renterghem K. Clinical Outcome: Patient and Partner Satisfaction after Penile Implant Surgery. Curr Urol. 2019;13:94–100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Burnett AL, Nehra A, Breau RH, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, et al. Erectile Dysfunction: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2018;200:633–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sansalone S, Garaffa G, Djinovic R, Antonini G, Vespasiani G, Ieria FP, et al. Simultaneous total corporal reconstruction and implantation of a penile prosthesis in patients with erectile dysfunction and severe fibrosis of the corpora cavernosa. J Sex Med. 2012;9:1937–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Szostak MJ, DelPizzo JJ, Sklar GN. The plug and patch: a new technique for repair of corporal perforation during placement of penile prostheses. J Urol. 2000;163:1203–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Anele UA, Le BV, Burnett AL. Suprapubic cystostomy for the management of urethral injuries during penile prosthesis implantation. Sex Med. 2014;2:178–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cakan M, Demirel F, Karabacak O, Yalçinkaya F, Altuğ U. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. Int Urol Nephrol. 2003;35:209–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol. 2001;166:932–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kardar A, Pettersson BA. Penile gangrene: a complication of penile prosthesis. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1995;29:355–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McLaren RH, Barrett DM. Patient and partner satisfaction with the AMS 700 penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1992;147:62–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Whalen RK, Merrill DC. Patient satisfaction with Mentor inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1991;37:531–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pritchard A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. J Doc. 1969;25:348.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jones T, Huggett S, Kamalski J. Finding a way through the scientific literature: indexes and measures. World Neurosurg. 2011;76:36–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eyre-Walker A, Stoletzki N. The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol. 2013;11:e1001675.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Šubelj L, Eck NJV, Waltman L Clustering Scientific Publications Based on Citation Relations: A Systematic Comparison of Different Methods. PLoS One. 2016.

  28. Levine LA, Becher EF, Bella AJ, Brant WO, Kohler TS, Martinez-Salamanca JI, et al. Penile Prosthesis Surgery: Current Recommendations From the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. J Sex Med. 2016;13:489–518.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE. Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. AMS 700CX Study Group. J Urol. 2000;164:376–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

  31. Eck NJV, Waltman L Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. Eprint Arxiv. 2011.

  32. Chen C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;57:359–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wilson SK, Carson CC, Cleves MA, Delk JR 2nd. Quantifying risk of penile prosthesis infection with elevated glycosylated hemoglobin. J Urol. 1998;159:1537–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Morey AF, Cefalu CA, Hudak SJ. High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs via transscrotal approach. J Sex Med. 2013;10:603–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang R, Howard GE, Hoang A, Yuan JH, Lin HC, Dai YT. Prospective and long-term evaluation of erect penile length obtained with inflatable penile prosthesis to that induced by intracavernosal injection. Asian J Androl. 2009;11:411–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Levine LA, Rybak J. Traction therapy for men with shortened penis prior to penile prosthesis implantation: a pilot study. J Sex Med. 2011;8:2112–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Carson CC 3rd, Mulcahy JJ, Harsch MR. Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of followup. J Urol. 2011;185:614–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Montague DK, Angermeir KW. Surgical approaches for penile prosthesis implantation: penoscrotal vs infrapubic. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15:S134–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kramer A, Chason J. Residents at the University of Maryland Medical System provide insight to learning infrapubic approach for IPP surgery: relative benefits but novel challenges exposed in first 15 cases. J Sex Med. 2010;7:1298–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Grande P, Antonini G, Cristini C, De Berardinis E, Gatto A, Di Lascio G, et al. Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36:1167–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Li K, Brandes ER, Chang SL, Leow JJ, Chung BI, Wang Y, et al. Trends in penile prosthesis implantation and analysis of predictive factors for removal. World J Urol. 2019;37:639–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Govier FE, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ, Pritchett TR, Kramer-Levien D. Mechanical reliability, surgical complications, and patient and partner satisfaction of the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1998;52:282–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jarow JP. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol. 1996;156:402–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd. Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol. 1995;153:659–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sørensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2012;147:373–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Collins KP, Hackler RH. Complications of penile prostheses in the spinal cord injury population. J Urol. 1988;140:984–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Christodoulidou M, Pearce I. Infection of Penile Prostheses in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus. Surg Infect. 2016;17:2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bishop JR, Moul JW, Sihelnik SA, Peppas DS, Gormley TS, McLeod DG. Use of glycosylated hemoglobin to identify diabetics at high risk for penile periprosthetic infections. J Urol. 1992;147:386–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dhabuwala C, Sheth S, Zamzow B. Infection rates of rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan Coloplast penile implants. Comparison with Inhibizone-impregnated AMS penile implants. J Sex Med. 2011;8:315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wilson SK, Salem EA, Costerton W. Anti-infection dip suggestions for the Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in the era of the infection retardant coated implant. J Sex Med. 2011;8:2647–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Eid JF. Penile Implant: Review of a “No-Touch” Technique. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:294–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Alwaal A, Harris CR, Hussein AA, Sanford TH, McCulloch CE, Shindel AW, et al. The Decline of Inpatient Penile Prosthesis over the 10-Year Period, 2000-10. Sex Med. 2015;3:280–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Nielsen KT, Bruskewitz RC. Semirigid and malleable rod penile prostheses. Urol Clin North Am. 1989;16:13–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:436–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Catalona WJ, Basler JW. Return of erections and urinary continence following nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 1993;150:905–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Alanazi G, Alsubaie N, Nabi G, Gillingwater TH, Alashkham A. Distribution of neurovascular structures within the prostate gland and their relationship to complications after radical prostatectomy. Prostate. 2024;84:491–501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Henry GD, Karpman E, Brant W, Christine B, Kansas BT, Khera M, et al. The Who, How and What of Real-World Penile Implantation in 2015: The PROPPER Registry Baseline Data. J Urol. 2016;195:427–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Lucas MG, Bosch RJ, Burkhard FC, Cruz F, Madden TB, Nambiar AK, et al. EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2012;62:1118–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kim PH, Pinheiro LC, Atoria CL, Eastham JA, Sandhu JS, Elkin EB. Trends in the use of incontinence procedures after radical prostatectomy: a population based analysis. J Urol. 2013;189:602–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Berge V, Thompson T, Blackman D. Additional surgical intervention after radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, androgen-deprivation therapy, or watchful waiting. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1036–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Segal RL, Cabrini MR, Harris ED, Mostwin JL, Bivalacqua TJ, Burnett AL. Combined inflatable penile prosthesis-artificial urinary sphincter implantation: no increased risk of adverse events compared to single or staged device implantation. J Urol. 2013;190:2183–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Deveci S, Hopps CV, O’Brien K, Parker M, Guhring P, Mulhall JP. Defining the clinical characteristics of Peyronie’s disease in young men. J Sex Med. 2007;4:485–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kadioglu A, Tefekli A, Erol B, Oktar T, Tunc M, Tellaloglu S. A retrospective review of 307 men with Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 2002;168:1075–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. La Croce G, Schifano N, Pescatori E, Caraceni E, Colombo F, Bettocchi C, et al. Which patient may benefit the most from penile prosthesis implantation? Andrology. 2022;10:1567–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Chung E, Solomon M, DeYoung L, Brock GB. Comparison between AMS 700™ CX and Coloplast™ Titan inflatable penile prosthesis for Peyronie’s disease treatment and remodeling: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med. 2013;10:2855–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd. A new treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1994;152:1121–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Levine LA, Dimitriou RJ. A surgical algorithm for penile prosthesis placement in men with erectile failure and Peyronie’s disease. Int J Impot Res. 2000;12:147–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Levine LA, Benson J, Hoover C. Inflatable penile prosthesis placement in men with Peyronie’s disease and drug-resistant erectile dysfunction: A single-center study. J Sex Med. 2010;7:3775–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Tefilli MV, Dubocq F, Rajpurkar A, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, Barton C, et al. Assessment of psychosexual adjustment after insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1998;52:1106–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Steege JF, Stout AL, Carson CC. Patient satisfaction in Scott and Small-Carrion penile implant recipients: a study of 52 patients. Arch Sex Behav. 1986;15:393–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Trost L, Hellstrom WJ. History, Contemporary Outcomes, and Future of Penile Prostheses: A Review of the Literature. Sex Med Rev. 2013;1:150–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, Levine LA. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2007;177:262–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Bozkurt IH, Arslan B, Yonguc T, Kozacıoglu Z, Degirmenci T, Gunlusoy B, et al. Patient and partner outcome of inflatable and semi-rigid penile prosthesis in a single institution. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41:535–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Çayan S, Aşcı R, Efesoy O, Bolat MS, Akbay E, Yaman Ö. Comparison of Long-Term Results and Couples’ Satisfaction with Penile Implant Types and Brands: Lessons Learned From 883 Patients With Erectile Dysfunction Who Underwent Penile Prosthesis Implantation. J Sex Med. 2019;16:1092–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Akin-Olugbade O, Parker M, Guhring P, Mulhall J. Determinants of patient satisfaction following penile prosthesis surgery. J Sex Med. 2006;3:743–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Savoie M, Kim SS, Soloway MS. A prospective study measuring penile length in men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:1462–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Mulhall JP. Penile length changes after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2005;96:472–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Gontero P, Galzerano M, Bartoletti R, Magnani C, Tizzani A, Frea B, et al. New insights into the pathogenesis of penile shortening after radical prostatectomy and the role of postoperative sexual function. J Urol. 2007;178:602–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Rolle L, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Sedigh O, Destefanis P, Galletto E, et al. A new, innovative, lengthening surgical procedure for Peyronie’s disease by penile prosthesis implantation with double dorsal-ventral patch graft: the “sliding technique. J Sex Med. 2012;9:2389–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Egydio PH, Kuehhas FE. Penile lengthening and widening without grafting according to a modified ‘sliding’ technique. BJU Int. 2015;116:965–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Rolle L, Falcone M, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Sedigh O, Ralph DJ, et al. A prospective multicentric international study on the surgical outcomes and patients’ satisfaction rates of the ‘sliding’ technique for end-stage Peyronie’s disease with severe shortening of the penis and erectile dysfunction. BJU Int. 2016;117:814–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Special Project of Sichuan Provincial Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Scientific Research of Traditional Chinese Medicine (Award Number: 2023MS595, Recipient: Recipient: XY).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

YL was responsible for writing and revising manuscripts. DG provided research methods and design. MW and JZ collected the data. XL examined the data. XY provided suggestions for the revision of the manuscript. DC provided the topic selection for the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xujun Yu or Degui Chang.

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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Gao, D., Zhang, J. et al. Penile prosthesis implantation: a bibliometric-based visualization study. Int J Impot Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00927-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00927-1

Search

Quick links