Literature DB >> 10671785

AMS three-piece inflatable implants for erectile dysfunction: a long-term multi-institutional study in 200 consecutive patients.

F Montorsi1, P Rigatti, G Carmignani, C Corbu, B Campo, G Ordesi, G Breda, P Silvestre, B Giammusso, G Morgia, A Graziottin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the longterm mechanical reliability of AMS (American Medical Systems) three-piece inflatable implants and their impact on patient-partner satisfaction in 200 consecutive patients with erectile dysfunction who underwent surgery in five different institutions.
METHODS: Patient charts included in the study were collected and extensively assessed to record pre- and intraoperative data and postoperative complications. All patients and 120 partners were then seen often in the office at a mean follow-up of 59 months (range 6-130) and they were extensively questioned about function of the device and its impact on the couple's sexual life.
RESULTS: At the long-term follow-up, 185 patients (92.5%) were still engaging in sexual intercourse with a mean frequency of 1.7/week. Patients and partners reported prosthetic erections as excellent, satisfactory or poor in 96 (48%), 100 (50%) and 4 (2%) cases, and in 20 (17%), 80 (66%) and 20 (17%) cases, respectively. Postoperative sexual activity was considered excellent, satisfactory or poor by 140 (70%), 44 (22%) and 16 (8%) patients and by 34 (28%), 81 (68%) and 5 (4%) partners, respectively. Reasons for patients' complaints included postoperative penile shortening in 60 (30%) cases and poor glandular engorgement in 40 (20%) cases. Partners' main complaint was unnaturalness of the prosthetic erection, a factor reported by 30 (25%) subjects. Complications requiring surgical exploration included infection in 12 patients (6%) and mechanical failure in 8 patients (4%). Kaplan-Meier estimates demonstrated significantly decreased mechanical survival for the Ultrex type of cylinders compared to the CX type of cylinders.
CONCLUSIONS: AMS three-piece inflatable implants provide an overall patient and partner satisfaction rate of 92 and 96%, respectively. However, postoperative penile shortening and poor glandular engorgement were the causes of some complaints among the patient population as well as the unnaturalness of prosthetic erection among female partners. In the long-term, mechanically speaking, CX cylinders seem to be more reliable than the Ultrex ones.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10671785     DOI: 10.1159/000020099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  33 in total

Review 1.  A practical overview of considerations for penile prosthesis placement.

Authors:  Landon Trost; Philip Wanzek; George Bailey
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 2.  Penile prosthetic surgery and its role in the treatment of end-stage erectile dysfunction - an update.

Authors:  S Jain; T R Terry
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  Incarcerated inguinal hernia and small bowel obstruction as a rare complication of a penile prosthesis.

Authors:  S J Serio; P Schafer; A M Merchant
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  Comparison of infrapubic versus transcrotal approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institution report.

Authors:  L W Trost; A G Boonjindasup; W J G Hellstrom
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 2.896

5.  Manufacturers' data show increasing implanted cylinder sizes and measured corporal lengths in inflatable penile implants.

Authors:  Charles Welliver; Michael Kottwitz; Ardalan E Ahmad; Steven K Wilson; Tobias S Köhler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  [Erectile dysfunction].

Authors:  Brigitte Esterbauer; Andreas Jungwirth
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2009

Review 7.  An overview of the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Sivaprakasam Sivalingam; Hashim Hashim; Hartwig Schwaibold
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 8.  A comparative review of the options for treatment of erectile dysfunction: which treatment for which patient?

Authors:  Konstantinos Hatzimouratidis; Dimitrios G Hatzichristou
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 9.  Current management of penile implant infections, device reliability, and optimizing cosmetic outcome.

Authors:  John J Mulcahy; Andrew Kramer; William O Brant; Justin L Parker; Paul E Perito; Jeremy B Myers; Richard Bryson; Meagan Dunne
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 10.  [Erectile dysfunction. Epidemiology, physiology, etiology, diagnosis and therapy].

Authors:  H Derouet; J Osterhage; H Sittinger
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.