PURPOSE: We evaluated long-term viability, quality of life and satisfaction with the redesigned 2 piece Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis. This device underwent revision of the rear tip extender and reinforcement of the pump tubing connection to decrease fluid leak failure in 1998. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis we evaluated 146 men with erectile dysfunction at 2 centers who underwent device implantation between June 1999 and October 2004 with the redesigned prosthesis. Patient information forms were completed, including patient history, surgical information and revision data. Patients were mailed a modified Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction questionnaire, a modified Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction Partner survey and a questionnaire regarding pertinent inflatable penile prosthesis questions. RESULTS: A total of 146 men with a mean age of 58.7 years (range 25 to 78) were evaluated after inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Time from implant to followup was 3 to 73 months (mean 38). Only 1 device (0.7%) was removed due to infection. One implant (0.7%) was replaced due to fluid loss and 1 (0.7%) was revised due to improper sizing. Kaplan-Meier life table analysis indicated that the percent of patients free from reoperation was 99.2% at 12 months, 99.2% at 36 months and 91% at 48 months or greater. Of the 101 subjects completing the survey the average patient used the prosthesis 5 times monthly and 88.9% reported continued use. Of the patients 91% said that it was easy to use and 95% had little to no trouble learning to use it, while 84% stated that the inflatable penile prosthesis provided good to excellent rigidity for coitus. Overall patient and partner satisfaction was 85% and 76%, respectively. Of the patients 86% said that they would recommend the prosthesis to friends or if need be undergo the procedure again. CONCLUSIONS: The redesigned Ambicor 2-piece penile prosthesis appears to be safe and effective. It is associated with a low rate of revision as well as high patient and partner satisfaction.
PURPOSE: We evaluated long-term viability, quality of life and satisfaction with the redesigned 2 piece Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis. This device underwent revision of the rear tip extender and reinforcement of the pump tubing connection to decrease fluid leak failure in 1998. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis we evaluated 146 men with erectile dysfunction at 2 centers who underwent device implantation between June 1999 and October 2004 with the redesigned prosthesis. Patient information forms were completed, including patient history, surgical information and revision data. Patients were mailed a modified Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction questionnaire, a modified Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction Partner survey and a questionnaire regarding pertinent inflatable penile prosthesis questions. RESULTS: A total of 146 men with a mean age of 58.7 years (range 25 to 78) were evaluated after inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Time from implant to followup was 3 to 73 months (mean 38). Only 1 device (0.7%) was removed due to infection. One implant (0.7%) was replaced due to fluid loss and 1 (0.7%) was revised due to improper sizing. Kaplan-Meier life table analysis indicated that the percent of patients free from reoperation was 99.2% at 12 months, 99.2% at 36 months and 91% at 48 months or greater. Of the 101 subjects completing the survey the average patient used the prosthesis 5 times monthly and 88.9% reported continued use. Of the patients 91% said that it was easy to use and 95% had little to no trouble learning to use it, while 84% stated that the inflatable penile prosthesis provided good to excellent rigidity for coitus. Overall patient and partner satisfaction was 85% and 76%, respectively. Of the patients 86% said that they would recommend the prosthesis to friends or if need be undergo the procedure again. CONCLUSIONS: The redesigned Ambicor 2-piece penile prosthesis appears to be safe and effective. It is associated with a low rate of revision as well as high patient and partner satisfaction.
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
Authors: Kai Li; Eileen R Brandes; Steven L Chang; Jeffrey J Leow; Benjamin I Chung; Ye Wang; Jairam R Eswara Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Amit G Reddy; Laith M Alzweri; Andrew T Gabrielson; Gabriel Leinwand; Wayne J G Hellstrom Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 5.400