ReviewCureus2025
Laminar Airflow in Penile Prosthesis Surgery and Infection: An Empty Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of tumor immunotherapy on kidney injury and multi-organ outcomes: a mechanistic and clinical perspective.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile prosthesis (PP) infection is uncommon but serious. Laminar airflow/ultraclean ventilation (LAF/UCV) aims to reduce airborne bioburden, but its clinical impact on PP infection is unclear. We registered a protocol in PROSPERO (CRD420251128507) and followed PRISMA 2020/PRISMA-S, searching MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Dimensions (no date limits), screening reference lists/forward citations, and reviewing professional guidance. Eligible studies were randomised or non-randomised comparative PP studies reporting infection by LAF/UCV versus conventional ventilation; portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)/UV recirculators were excluded a priori. Two reviewers independently screened the results; meta-analysis was prespecified if appropriate, otherwise a narrative synthesis was used. Of 99 records (98 databases; 1 other), 26 duplicates were removed; 72 titles/abstracts were screened; 2 full texts were assessed. As a result, no study met the inclusion criteria, and no meta-analysis was possible. Indirect evidence from orthopaedic, breast, vascular, and cardiac surgery shows no consistent reduction in deep surgical-site infection with LAF compared with conventional ventilation under real-world conditions where unidirectionality can be disrupted by door openings, staff/equipment movement, and thermal plumes. Evidence from other specialties is indirect and of uncertain applicability to penile prosthesis surgery. No eligible comparative penile prosthesis studies evaluating LAF/UCV versus conventional ventilation were identified; this is therefore an empty systematic review. Pending procedure-specific data, practice should prioritise multimodal infection-prevention bundles (e.g., antibiotic prophylaxis, "no-touch" technique, traffic control) and verification of ventilation performance during live use; future multicentre observational studies or cluster/stepped-wedge trials should prospectively capture ventilation parameters and key confounders to enable robust comparisons and cost-effectiveness analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.