Literature DB >> 9697794

Long-term mechanical reliability of multicomponent inflatable penile prosthesis: comparison of device survival.

F Dubocq1, M V Tefilli, E L Gheiler, H Li, C B Dhabuwala.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the mechanical reliability of multicomponent inflatable penile prosthesis, comparing five different types of devices, as well as the two-piece versus three-piece as a group.
METHODS: We followed 83 patients with two-piece and 283 patients with three-piece inflatable penile prostheses for a mean time of 66 months. At a cutoff of 63 months, mechanical complication rates were reviewed and statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: Thirty-one device-related complications occurred, and all were secondary to fluid leakage. The Mentor Alpha-1 prosthesis was significantly better than the Mentor Mark-II in terms of mechanical reliability (P = 0.01). A trend was noted toward the AMS 700 Ultrex inflatable penile prosthesis having fewer mechanical complications than the Mentor Mark-II (P = 0.06). In addition, a trend toward all three-piece prostheses being more mechanically reliable than the two-piece was noted (P = 0.08). The Mentor Alpha-1 device had a higher cumulative proportional survival (0.957) than all other devices (0.842 for AMS 700 Ultrex, 0.839 for AMS 700 CX, 0.783 for Mentor GFS, and 0.750 for Mentor Mark-II).
CONCLUSIONS: As a group, a trend was noted toward the three-piece prosthesis having better mechanical reliability than the two-piece prosthesis. Comparisons between the individual types of prostheses showed thatthe Mentor Alpha-1 device was significantly more mechanically reliable than the Mentor Mark-II device, and a trend was noted toward the AMS 700 Ultrex device having fewer mechanical complications than the Mentor Mark-II. The Mentor Alpha-1 prosthesis had the highest cumulative proportional survival.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9697794     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00174-5

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Radiological assessment of penile prosthesis: the role of magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ignacio Moncada; José Jara; Ramiro Cabello; Juan Ignacio Monzo; Carlos Hernández
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2004-10-30       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  A comparative review of the options for treatment of erectile dysfunction: which treatment for which patient?

Authors:  Konstantinos Hatzimouratidis; Dimitrios G Hatzichristou
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 3.  Surgical management of erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Aaron J Milbank; Drogo K Montague
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.633

Review 4.  Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction.

Authors:  Timothy K O'Rourke; Alexander Erbella; Yu Zhang; Matthew S Wosnitzer
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-11

Review 5.  Role of Penile Prosthesis in Priapism: A Review.

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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.