OBJECTIVE: To analyze the results achieved with vacuum devices in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted on 150 patients undergoing treatment with a vacuum device. Of these, 89 responded; 79 of which were considered valid for the study. The duration and frequency of use, side effects and degree of patient and partner satisfaction were analyzed. Mean follow-up was 59.5 months. RESULTS: There were 14 dropouts early in the course of treatment. The remaining 65 patients used the device for a mean duration of 34.6 months, 3.7 times monthly. 63.3% of the patients achieved erection in more than half of the attempts. The most frequent side effects were pain (27 patients) and ecchymosis (7 patients). Forty-eight patients discontinued treatment at 10.8 months' mean follow-up. The most common causes for discontinuing treatment were lack of efficacy, refusal of the partner and pain. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of erectile dysfunction with the vacuum constriction device should be utilized as an alternative to intracavernosal drug-induced erection therapy when oral therapy fails or is contraindicated. A male with a stable partner and impotence arising from venous leakage or mild cavernous artery insufficiency is the ideal candidate.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the results achieved with vacuum devices in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted on 150 patients undergoing treatment with a vacuum device. Of these, 89 responded; 79 of which were considered valid for the study. The duration and frequency of use, side effects and degree of patient and partner satisfaction were analyzed. Mean follow-up was 59.5 months. RESULTS: There were 14 dropouts early in the course of treatment. The remaining 65 patients used the device for a mean duration of 34.6 months, 3.7 times monthly. 63.3% of the patients achieved erection in more than half of the attempts. The most frequent side effects were pain (27 patients) and ecchymosis (7 patients). Forty-eight patients discontinued treatment at 10.8 months' mean follow-up. The most common causes for discontinuing treatment were lack of efficacy, refusal of the partner and pain. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of erectile dysfunction with the vacuum constriction device should be utilized as an alternative to intracavernosal drug-induced erection therapy when oral therapy fails or is contraindicated. A male with a stable partner and impotence arising from venous leakage or mild cavernous artery insufficiency is the ideal candidate.