Literature DB >> 11890510

Comparison of in-patient and out-patient penile prosthesis surgery.

J P Mulhall1, K Bloom.   

Abstract

Between December 1996 and December 1998, 79 inflatable penile implant insertions have been performed at our institution by a single surgeon. The objective of this analysis was to compare our in-patient and out-patient experience with penile prosthesis insertion with respect to ease of performance and complication profiles. Data was collected in a prospective manner for both groups (in-patient, n = 33 and out-patient, n = 46). The two groups were compared with respect to intra-operative blood loss, operative time, time lost from work, narcotic use and complication rates. Both groups of patients experienced similar operative blood loss, essentially identical operative times, time lost from work and narcotic use. Most importantly, overall complication rates were 6% for the in-patient group and 4% for the out-patient group. Inflatable penile implant surgery is feasible in an ambulatory surgical setting. There is no difference in complication rates, loss of time from work, or intra-operative and post-operative course. Furthermore, there is a significant saving at our institution by performing the procedure in an out-patient fashion. In-patient prosthetic surgery is reserved for secondary procedures following a prior implant infection or primary implants in men with significant co-morbidities that require in-patient postoperative monitoring.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11890510     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3900695

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Factors associated with postoperative urinary retention in patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation.

Authors:  Johnathan A Drevik; Zafardjan Dalimov; Jacob Lucas; Jay Simhan; Joshua A Cohn
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 2.408

Review 3.  Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction.

Authors:  Timothy K O'Rourke; Alexander Erbella; Yu Zhang; Matthew S Wosnitzer
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-11

Review 4.  Risk profiling in patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation.

Authors:  Linda M Huynh; Mohamad M Osman; Faysal A Yafi
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 5.  Future considerations in prosthetic urology.

Authors:  Landon Trost
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.285

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

Review 7.  A narrative review of the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia in patients undergoing penile prosthesis surgery.

Authors:  Lexiaochuan Wen; Tobias S Köhler; Sevann Helo
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06

8.  The Decline of Inpatient Penile Prosthesis over the 10-Year Period, 2000-2010.

Authors:  Amjad Alwaal; Catherine R Harris; Ahmed A Hussein; Thomas H Sanford; Charles E McCulloch; Alan W Shindel; Benjamin N Breyer
Journal:  Sex Med       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 2.491

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.