OBJECTIVES: The vacuum constriction device (VED) is an effective nonsurgical treatment for erectile dysfunction. Its efficacy in specific patient groups, however, has not been extensively studied. Only one study to date has examined the use of the VED in patients with corporeal veno-occlusive dysfunction (CVOD). This study used a mailed questionnaire and no statistical analysis of the data. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of the VED in patients with documented CVOD. METHODS: From 1989 to 1992, 294 patients chose to use a VED as treatment for erectile dysfunction. All patients were evaluated with a thorough history and physical examination, hormonal testing, glucose tolerance testing, and nocturnal penile tumescence studies. Ninety-eight patients underwent additional vascular testing. When seen in follow-up, patients were asked to assess erection quality and overall satisfaction with the device. RESULTS: Fifty patients had documented CVOD (33 by cavernosometry, 16 by ultrasound, and 1 by cavernosography). Twenty-eight patients (56%) were satisfied, 13 patients (26%) were unsatisfied, and in 9 patients (18%) satisfaction could not be determined. Thirty-eight patients (76%) achieved an erection of at least 7 on a scale of 1 to 10. There was no relationship between the severity of disease (as measured by cavernosometry) and the rating of erection (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.77) or satisfaction with the device (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The VED is an acceptable nonsurgical treatment for patients with erectile dysfunction secondary to CVOD regardless of severity. Its success rate is comparable to other therapeutic modalities such as injection therapy.
OBJECTIVES: The vacuum constriction device (VED) is an effective nonsurgical treatment for erectile dysfunction. Its efficacy in specific patient groups, however, has not been extensively studied. Only one study to date has examined the use of the VED in patients with corporeal veno-occlusive dysfunction (CVOD). This study used a mailed questionnaire and no statistical analysis of the data. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of the VED in patients with documented CVOD. METHODS: From 1989 to 1992, 294 patients chose to use a VED as treatment for erectile dysfunction. All patients were evaluated with a thorough history and physical examination, hormonal testing, glucose tolerance testing, and nocturnal penile tumescence studies. Ninety-eight patients underwent additional vascular testing. When seen in follow-up, patients were asked to assess erection quality and overall satisfaction with the device. RESULTS: Fifty patients had documented CVOD (33 by cavernosometry, 16 by ultrasound, and 1 by cavernosography). Twenty-eight patients (56%) were satisfied, 13 patients (26%) were unsatisfied, and in 9 patients (18%) satisfaction could not be determined. Thirty-eight patients (76%) achieved an erection of at least 7 on a scale of 1 to 10. There was no relationship between the severity of disease (as measured by cavernosometry) and the rating of erection (Kruskal-Wallis test, P = 0.77) or satisfaction with the device (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The VED is an acceptable nonsurgical treatment for patients with erectile dysfunction secondary to CVOD regardless of severity. Its success rate is comparable to other therapeutic modalities such as injection therapy.