INTRODUCTION: Complications that arise after placement of a penile prosthesis may result in the need for revision surgery. Few contemporary penile prosthesis series have focused solely on describing the efficacy and patient satisfaction associated with penile prosthesis revision surgery. AIM: To determine the overall success of penile prosthesis revision surgery in providing the patient with a functional implant. Device efficacy and patient satisfaction with penile prosthesis revision surgery will be assessed using psychometrically validated instruments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The erectile function (EF) and satisfaction domains of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) were used to quantify the overall efficacy and patient satisfaction with revision surgery. METHODS: Data were derived from a prospective database of consecutive patients undergoing penile prosthesis revision surgery performed by a single surgeon (B.R.K.). Eleven patients filled out the IIEF prior to surgery and 26 completed it following surgery. RESULTS: Thirty-nine consecutive patients underwent 55 revision procedures related to a prior penile prosthesis. Thirty-four patients (87%) have a functional implant with a median follow-up of 6.5 months (range 1-42 months). Significant improvements in the overall IIEF, EF domain, and satisfaction domain were seen in those patients studied prior to and following revision surgery. The total IIEF, EF domain, and satisfaction domain of the IIEF for the group of 26 responders were 60.7 +/- 19.3, 26.6 +/- 8.7, and 15.7 +/- 5.6, respectively. Patients with fibrotic corporal bodies scored significantly lower on the EF and satisfaction domains than did any other group. CONCLUSIONS: Penile prosthesis revision surgery is highly successful in providing men with a functional implant. The prostheses function well and patients are satisfied with their devices. Further study of those men with corporal fibrosis is warranted in order to determine the factors needed to improve their overall satisfaction with revision surgery.
INTRODUCTION: Complications that arise after placement of a penile prosthesis may result in the need for revision surgery. Few contemporary penile prosthesis series have focused solely on describing the efficacy and patient satisfaction associated with penile prosthesis revision surgery. AIM: To determine the overall success of penile prosthesis revision surgery in providing the patient with a functional implant. Device efficacy and patient satisfaction with penile prosthesis revision surgery will be assessed using psychometrically validated instruments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The erectile function (EF) and satisfaction domains of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) were used to quantify the overall efficacy and patient satisfaction with revision surgery. METHODS: Data were derived from a prospective database of consecutive patients undergoing penile prosthesis revision surgery performed by a single surgeon (B.R.K.). Eleven patients filled out the IIEF prior to surgery and 26 completed it following surgery. RESULTS: Thirty-nine consecutive patients underwent 55 revision procedures related to a prior penile prosthesis. Thirty-four patients (87%) have a functional implant with a median follow-up of 6.5 months (range 1-42 months). Significant improvements in the overall IIEF, EF domain, and satisfaction domain were seen in those patients studied prior to and following revision surgery. The total IIEF, EF domain, and satisfaction domain of the IIEF for the group of 26 responders were 60.7 +/- 19.3, 26.6 +/- 8.7, and 15.7 +/- 5.6, respectively. Patients with fibrotic corporal bodies scored significantly lower on the EF and satisfaction domains than did any other group. CONCLUSIONS: Penile prosthesis revision surgery is highly successful in providing men with a functional implant. The prostheses function well and patients are satisfied with their devices. Further study of those men with corporal fibrosis is warranted in order to determine the factors needed to improve their overall satisfaction with revision surgery.
Authors: Giovanni Battista Di Pierro; Andrea Lemma; Giovanni Di Lascio; Alessandro El Motassime; Pietro Grande; Ivan Di Giulio; Stefano Salciccia; Martina Maggi; Gabriele Antonini; Ettore De Berardinis; Cristiano Cristini; Alessandro Sciarra Journal: Andrologia Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 2.532
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