Literature DB >> 14751370

Assessing comfort, safety, and patient satisfaction with three commonly used penile compression devices.

K N Moore1, S Schieman, T Ackerman, H Y Dzus, J B Metcalfe, D C Voaklander.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety, efficacy, comfort, and patient satisfaction with three penile compression devices: the Cunningham clamp, C3, and U-Tex.
METHODS: The devices were tested in random order in a multiple-period, crossover study design using a Latin squares configuration. The subjects had undergone radical prostatectomy 6 months or more before the study, had no neurologic or cognitive impairment, and had not undergone radiotherapy. Baseline penile Doppler ultrasonography was followed by ultrasound scanning with each device. In random order, subjects completed a 4-hour pad test, with and without each device, and the questionnaire.
RESULTS: Twelve men completed the study. The mean Mini-Mental State Examination score was 29.6 (SD 1.2, range 27 to 30). The mean urine loss at baseline was 122.8 g (SD 130.8). The mean urine loss with each device was 53.3 g (SD 65.7) with the U-Tex, 32.3 g (SD 24.3) with C3, and 17.1 g (SD 21.3) with the Cunningham clamp (P <0.05). No device had an impact on the resistive index; the C3 and U-Tex allowed good cavernosal artery flow, and the Cunningham clamp significantly lowered the distal blood flow velocity (from 12.5 to 7.3 cm/s [left systolic velocity] to 9.5 cm/s [right systolic velocity]) even at the loosest setting. The Cunningham clamp was ranked positively by 10 of 12 men; 2 of 12 men rated the C3 positively; none rated the U-Tex positively.
CONCLUSIONS: The Cunningham device was the most efficacious and most acceptable to users, but also contributed to reduced systolic velocity in all men. None of the devices completely eliminated urine loss when applied at a comfortable pressure. Individualized instruction to cognitively capable men is necessary to ensure appropriate application, comfort, and fit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14751370     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2003.08.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  8 in total

1.  Urethral diverticulum: a potential hazard of penile clamp application for male urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Sidhartha Kalra; P Rao Srinivas; Ramanitharan Manikandan; Lalgudi Narayanan Dorairajan
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2015-04-09

2.  Management of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Thomas R Jarvis; Jaspreet S Sandhu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  [Conservative management of postoperative urinary incontinence in men].

Authors:  J N Nyarangi-Dix; D Schultz-Lampel; U Hohenfellner; J Huber; G Hatiboglu; N Djakovic; A Haferkamp; M Hohenfellner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Diagnosis and office-based treatment of urinary incontinence in adults. Part two: treatment.

Authors:  Anne P Cameron; Masahito Jimbo; Joel J Heidelbaugh
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2013-08

Review 5.  Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Coral A Anderson; Muhammad Imran Omar; Susan E Campbell; Kathleen F Hunter; June D Cody; Cathryn M A Glazener
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-01-20

6.  Management of male urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Katie C Moore; Malcolm G Lucas
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2010-04

7.  Conservative treatment for postprostatectomy incontinence.

Authors:  Bilal Chughtai; Richard Lee; Jaspreet Sandhu; Alexis Te; Steven Kaplan
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

8.  Male urinary incontinence: prevalence, risk factors, and preventive interventions.

Authors:  Tatyana A Shamliyan; Jean F Wyman; Ryan Ping; Timothy J Wilt; Robert L Kane
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2009
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.