Literature DB >> 10637463

Axial penile buckling forces vs Rigiscan radial rigidity as a function of intracavernosal pressure: why Rigiscan does not predict functional erections in individual patients.

D Udelson1, K Park, H Sadeghi-Nejad, P Salimpour, R J Krane, I Goldstein, H Sadeghi-Najed.   

Abstract

AIM: An improved understanding of the relationship between radial and axial rigdity values would enable better appreciation of the clinical usefulness of RigiScantrade mark, the most widely utilized determination of erectile rigidity testing. Previous studies have shown that axial rigidity (measured by buckling forces) correlated well with radial rigidity (measured by RigiScantrade mark) for radial rigidity values below 60%. For radial rigidity exceeding 60%, there was poor correlation. Heretofore, there has been no physiologic explanation of this phenomenon.
METHODS: During dynamic pharmacocavernosometry in 36 impotent patients, we investigated the relationship between axial buckling forces and RigiScan radial rigidity and, for the first time, how they both vary with pressure, (which we varied over over a wide functional range). In addition, we recorded multiple penile length and diameter values enabling us to relate, also for the first time, axial and radial rigidity to individual mechanical erectile tissue and penile geometric properties.
RESULTS: Marked differences were found in the manner RigiScan radial rigidity units and axial buckling force magnitudes increased with increases in intracavernosal pressure values in each individual. The former asymptotically approached a maximum finite value while the latter increased continuously towards infinity. Based on data in this study, RigiScan radial rigidity values greater than 55% may be considered a necessary criteria for vaginal intromission capability in all partners but it is not a sufficient one.
CONCLUSIONS: Axial and radial rigidity share a common dependency upon intracavernosal pressure, however, they are also dependent upon other unique physical determinants. For axial rigidity, additional dependent variables include cavernosal erectile tissue properties and penile geometry, while for radial rigidity, this may include tunical surface wall tension properties. Clinical devices which assess functional penile rigidity should utilize axial and not radial rigidity testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10637463     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3900443

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Impot Res        ISSN: 0955-9930            Impact factor:   2.896


  7 in total

Review 1.  Sleep-related erections: neural mechanisms and clinical significance.

Authors:  Markus H Schmidt; Helmut S Schmidt
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.081

Review 2.  Biomechanics of male erectile function.

Authors:  Daniel Udelson
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2007-12-22       Impact factor: 4.118

Review 3.  Applications of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and prediction of erectile dysfunction: a narrative review.

Authors:  Yang Xiong; Yangchang Zhang; Fuxun Zhang; Changjing Wu; Feng Qin; Jiuhong Yuan
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 2.408

4.  Morphologic findings and blood flow parameters of penile vasculature in patients with erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  S Papadoukakis; C Alamanis; D Mitropoulos; A Chountala; A Giannopoulos
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2004-09-09       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  Understanding the cellular basis and pathophysiology of Peyronie's disease to optimize treatment for erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Jeffrey Campbell; Raidh Alzubaidi
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-02

Review 6.  Safety and Efficacy of Inflatable Penile Prostheses for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: Evidence to Date.

Authors:  Vinson M Wang; Laurence A Levine
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2022-02-10

7.  Women's Preferences for Penis Size: A New Research Method Using Selection among 3D Models.

Authors:  Nicole Prause; Jaymie Park; Shannon Leung; Geoffrey Miller
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.