Literature DB >> 23210973

Comparison between AMS 700™ CX and Coloplast™ Titan inflatable penile prosthesis for Peyronie's disease treatment and remodeling: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Eric Chung1, Matthew Solomon, Ling DeYoung, Gerald B Brock.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) with simultaneous manual penile remodeling allows for men to undergo a single procedure aimed at correcting both the penile deformity/curvature and erectile dysfunction (ED). AIM: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in men with Peyronie's disease (PD) and ED who underwent AMS 700™ CX and the newer Coloplast™ Titan inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient demographics, type of IPP, clinical outcomes, post-implant sexual characteristics, and overall patient satisfaction.
METHODS: A single-center retrospective review of clinical database and prospective telephone survey were conducted in all men with PD who underwent IPP between January 2006 and November 2010.
RESULTS: A total of 138 patients with an average age of 57.7 (32 to 80) underwent AMS 700 CX (88 patients) and Coloplast Titans (50 patients) IPP implantation during the 5-year period. The majority of patients (91%) had only one IPP implantation. The IPP clinical outcomes include eight (6%) revision surgery for device malfunction and three (2%) device explantation for prosthesis infection. While there was no statistically significance in device survival between the two devices, the trend favored AMS 700 CX over Titan (5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of mechanical survival were 91% vs. 87%, P>0.05) and both IPPs provided similar penile straightening without the need for revision surgery. Most men (79%) reported great satisfaction following CX or Titan implants with greater than two thirds of men reported greater self-confidence and 82% of patients would undergo the same operation again.
CONCLUSIONS: AMS 700™ CX and Coloplast™ Titan IPP implantation and penile remodeling appeared to provide permanent penile straightening and high patient satisfaction without an increase risk of revision surgery.
© 2012 International Society for Sexual Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AMS 700 and Titan Device; Device Survival; Inflatable Penile Prosthesis; Patient Satisfaction; Penile Remodeling; Peyronie's Disease

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23210973     DOI: 10.1111/jsm.12009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sex Med        ISSN: 1743-6095            Impact factor:   3.802


  32 in total

Review 1.  A practical overview of considerations for penile prosthesis placement.

Authors:  Landon Trost; Philip Wanzek; George Bailey
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Rear Tip Extenders and Penile Prosthesis Rigidity: A Laboratory Study of Coloplast Prostheses.

Authors:  Nannan Thirumavalavan; Billy H Cordon; Martin S Gross; Jeffrey Taylor; Jean-Francois Eid
Journal:  J Sex Med       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 3.802

Review 3.  Strategies for penile prosthesis placement in Peyronie's disease and corporal fibrosis.

Authors:  Faysal A Yafi; Premsant Sangkum; Ian Ross McCaslin; Wayne J G Hellstrom
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Innovating Incrementally: Development of the Modern Inflatable Penile Prosthesis.

Authors:  Mark Ehlers; Benjamin McCormick; R Matthew Coward; Bradley D Figler
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 5.  The Rear Tip Extender for Inflatable Penile Prostheses: Introduction of "Rigidity Factor" and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Nannan Thirumavalavan; Billy H Cordon; Martin S Gross; Jeffrey Taylor; Jean-Francois Eid
Journal:  Sex Med Rev       Date:  2018-12-11

6.  Longitudinal and Horizontal Load Testing of Inflatable Penile Implant Cylinders of Two Manufacturers: An Ex Vivo Demonstration of Inflated Rigidity.

Authors:  Jason M Scovell; Liehui Ge; Enrique V Barrera; Steven K Wilson; Rafael E Carrion; Tariq S Hakky
Journal:  J Sex Med       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 3.802

Review 7.  A Contemporary Evaluation of Peyronie's Disease During Penile Prosthesis Placement: MOST, MUST, and More.

Authors:  Jonathan Nicholas Warner
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 8.  Surgical management of Peyronie's disease.

Authors:  Uwais B Zaid; Amjad Alwaal; Xiaoyu Zhang; Tom F Lue
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  2013-2014 updates in Peyronie's disease management.

Authors:  Benjamin A Sherer; Krishnan Warrior; Laurence A Levine
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 10.  Current management of penile implant infections, device reliability, and optimizing cosmetic outcome.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.