↓ Skip to main content

Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis
Published in
World Journal of Urology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00345-018-2249-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pietro Grande, Gabriele Antonini, Cristiano Cristini, Ettore De Berardinis, Antonio Gatto, Giovanni Di Lascio, Andrea Lemma, Giuseppe Gentile, Giovanni Battista Di Pierro

Abstract

To compare perioperative results, safety and efficacy profile in patients receiving inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) via penoscrotal (PS) or minimally invasive infrapubic (MII) approach for erectile dysfunction. A matched-pair analysis was performed including 42 patients undergoing IPP implantation via PS (n = 21) or MII (n = 21) between 2011 and 2016. Clinical and surgical data were prospectively collected. Patients' and partners' outcomes were assessed by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) and Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaires. Mean (SD) operative time was 128 (40.6) min in group PS and 91 (43.0) min in group MII (p = 0.041). Complications occurred in 3/21 (14%) and 2/21 (10%) patients in groups PS and MII (p = 0.832). Overall, no differences were observed concerning the device utilisation (p = 0.275). However, in group MII 4/21 (19%) patients were able to resume sexual activity prior to 4 postoperative weeks, while in group PS no patient was (p = 0.012). Mean (SD) scores for questionnaires were similar between groups PS and MII: IIEF [20.9 (7.3) vs. 20.7 (4.8); p = 0.132], patient EDITS [76.0 (25.6) vs. 74.7 (20.8); p = 0.256] and partner EDITS [72.5 (29.1) vs. 73.1 (21.4); p = 0.114]. Similarly, QoLSPP showed comparable results among the groups PS and MII: functional domain [3.9 (1.4) vs. 4.0 (1.2); p = 0.390], personal [4.0 (1.2) vs. 4.1 (1.0); p = 0.512], relational [3.7 (1.5) vs. 3.9 (1.2); p = 0.462] and social [4.0 (1.2) vs. 3.9 (1.2); p = 0.766]. PS and MII demonstrated to be safe and efficient techniques, leading to high level of both patients and partners satisfaction. Additionally, the minimally invasive infrapubic approach showed a shorter operative time and a tendency for a faster return to sexual activity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Other 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 14 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 13 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2022.
All research outputs
#13,379,032
of 23,283,373 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,262
of 2,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,183
of 331,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#41
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,283,373 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.