The contemporary academic landscape of penile prosthesis surgery: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis surgery (PPS) has advanced significantly over the past decade with a wealth of research published, yet the key studies shaping contemporary clinical practice remain unclear. AIM: To identify and analyze the 50 most-cited primary research articles on PPS, published between 2014 and 2024, examining bibliometric characteristics, authorship networks, and thematic trends. METHODS: A bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science Core Collection identified the most-cited PPS research articles within the study period. Data were extracted, stored, and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. VOSviewer (v1.8) generated authorship networks and keyword co-occurrence maps to visualize collaborations and thematic clusters. OUTCOMES: Bibliometric data on authorship, year, journal, study design, level of evidence, and keywords were extracted, stored, and analyzed. RESULTS: The 50 most-cited articles accrued 2283 citations (median 39). The most-cited study, by MS Gross, received 128 citations. MS Gross also authored the most first author publications (n = 3). Most studies were observational in nature. Over half were published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine (n = 26), followed by The Journal of Urology (n = 7), Urology (n = 5), and BJU International (n = 5). Thematic analysis identified dominant focuses: surgical outcomes (n = 27), complications (n = 26), devices (n = 17), infection (n = 16), special populations such as transgender or post-radical prostatectomy patients (n = 12), surgical techniques (n = 12), and predictors/risk factors (n = 7). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This bibliometric analysis identifies the research domains shaping contemporary PPS, while highlighting a predominance of retrospective, U.S.-centered evidence and the need for future international, coordinated, prospective multicenter research to advance the field. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study benefits from a transparent methodology and validated bibliometric tools. Limitations include the use of a single database, reliance on citation metrics, dominance of high-volume centers, and the absence of altmetric analysis, which may restrict assessment of quality, generalizability, and contemporary research impact. CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis highlights the most influential PPS publications over the past decade. A concentration of output from U.S.-based authors and high-volume centers, as well as a tendency toward observational designs, underscores the current research landscape. Future work with thematic and geographic diversity as well as prospective and multicenter studies may further advance the field.