Journals / Androloji Bülteni / 2017 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 4

The long term clinical results of penile prosthesis implantation in the treatment of erectile dysfunction

Erektil disfonksiyon tedavisinde penil protez implantasyonunun uzun dönem klinik sonuçları

Pages
117–122
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this method of providing patient and co-satisfaction at high rates, infection is the most common serious complication, despite appropriate surgical procedures

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of penile prosthesis implantation in our clinic for the treatment of patients with organic erectile dysfunction (ED).MATERIAL and METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 34 patients who agreed to participate in the study from 52 accessible patients who were diagnosed with organic ED in our clinic and who had undergone the penile prosthesis implantation for 60 months or more.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patient demographic data, the type of prostheses, peroperative and postoperative complications, postoperative couples’ satisfaction were evaluated.RESULTS: The mean age of the 34 patients with penile prosthesis implantation was 61.97±10.55 years and the mean body mass index was 27.55±4.33 kg/m2. 23 of the patients (69.6%) had a history of smoking.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this method of providing patient and co-satisfaction at high rates, infection is the most common serious complication, despite appropriate surgical procedures
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of penile prosthesis implantation in our clinic for the treatment of patients with organic erectile dysfunction (ED).MATERIAL and METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 34 patients who agreed to participate in the study from 52 accessible patients who were diagnosed with organic ED in our clinic and who had undergone the penile prosthesis implantation for 60 months or more. Patient demographic data, the type of prostheses, peroperative and postoperative complications, postoperative couples’ satisfaction were evaluated.RESULTS: The mean age of the 34 patients with penile prosthesis implantation was 61.97±10.55 years and the mean body mass index was 27.55±4.33 kg/m2. 23 of the patients (69.6%) had a history of smoking. The malleable prosthesis was implanted to 15 patients (44.1%), the 2-piece penile prosthesis to 14 (41.1%) patients and the 3-piece prosthesis to the remaining 5 (14.7%) patients. Penile prosthesis was performed with cefazolin and gentamicin prophylaxis in 34 patients by penoscrotal incision. There were no peroperative complications in any patient. Penile tension/pain in one patient, localized infection in 2 patients with an on site antibiotherapy and re-implantation due to a mechanical problem in 1 patient. Penile prosthesis was removed due to prosthetic infection in two patients. The mean follow-up was 86.47±31.78 months and approximately 82.4% of patients and 70.5% of their partners were satisfied with the surgical results of the penile prosthesis operation.CONCLUSION: Penile prosthesis implantation is an invasive and effective form of treatment as a third-line treatment in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. In this method of providing patient and co-satisfaction at high rates, infection is the most common serious complication, despite appropriate surgical procedures

Özet

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmanın amacı, organik nedenli erektil disfonksiyon (ED) tanılı hastaların tedavisi için kliniğimizde uygulanan penil protez implantasyonun uzun dönem klinik sonuçlarını değerlendirmektir.GEREÇ ve YÖNTEMLER: Kliniğimizde organik ED tanısı ile penil protez implantasyonu yapılan ve üzerinden 60 ay ve üzeri süre geçmiş olan, ulaşılabilen 52 hasta içerisinden çalışmaya katılmayı kabul eden 34 hastaya ait veriler retrospektif olarak incelendi. Hastaların demografik verileri, uygulanan protez tipleri, peroperatif ve postoperatif komplikasyonları, post operatif dönemde kendisinin ve eşinin memnuniyet durumu değerlendirildi.BULGULAR: Penil protez implantasyonu yapılan 34 olgunun yaş ortalaması 61,97±10,55 yıl ve ortalama vücut kitle indeksleri 27,55±4,33 kg/m2 olarak saptandı. Hastaların 23'ünde (%69,6) sigara kullanım öyküsü mevcuttu. Malleable protez konulan 15 (%44,1) hasta iken, 14 (%41,1) hastaya iki parçalı penil protez, geri kalan beş (%14,7) hastaya da üç parçalı protez yerleştirildi. Penil protez cerrahisi sefazolin ve gentamisin profilaksisi ile 34 hastada penoskrotal insizyonla gerçekleştirildi. Hiçbir hastada peroperatif komplikasyon yaşanmadı. Bir hastada penil gerginlik/ağrı, iki hastada insizyon yerinde antibiyoterapi ile düzelen lokalize enfeksiyon ve bir hastada mekanik problem nedeniyle re-implantasyon gerçekleştirildi. İki hastada protez enfeksiyonu nedeniyle penil protez çıkartıldı. Ortalama takip süresi 86,47±31,78 ay olan hastaların %82,4'ü, eşlerinin %70,5'i penil protezden memnun olduğunu belirtti.SONUÇ: Penil protez implantasyonu, erektil disfonksiyon tedavisinde 3. basamak tedavi olarak başvurulan invazif ve etkili bir tedavi biçimidir. Yüksek oranlarda hasta ve eş memnuniyeti sağlayan bu yöntemde, uygun cerrahi prosedürlere rağmen enfeksiyon en sık görülen ciddi bir komplikasyondur

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜMÜŞ, B. H., ALBAZ, A. C. (2017). The long term clinical results of penile prosthesis implantation in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Androloji Bülteni, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 4, 117–122. https://ajindex.com/articles/147098

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Lindau ST, Schumm LP, Laumann EO, Levinson W, O’Muircheartaigh CA, Waite LJ. A study of sexuality and health among older adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2007
  2. 762–74. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa067423 2. NIH Consensus Conference. Impotence. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Impotence. JAMA 1993
  3. 83–90. 3. Nehra A, Barret DM, Morelan RB. Pharmacotherapeutic advances in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Mayo Clin Proc 1999
  4. 709–21. doi: 10.4065/74.7.709 5. Akkus E, Kadioglu A, Esen A, Doran S, Ergen A, Anafarta K, et al. Prevalence and correlates of erectile dysfunction in Turkey: a population-based study. Eur Urol 2002
  5. 298–304. 6. Mulhall JP, Bella AJ, Briganti A, McCullough A, Brock G. Erectile function rehabilitation in the radical prostatectomy patient. J Sex Med 2010
  6. 1687–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01804.x 7. Gontero P, Fontana F, Zitella A, Montorsi F, Frea B. A prospective evaluation of efficacy and compliance with a multistep treatment approach for erectile dysfunction in patients after non-nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2005
  7. 359–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05300.x 8. Evans C. The use of penile prostheses in the treatment of impotence. Br J Urol 1998
  8. 591–8. 9. Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int 2006
  9. 129–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1464- 410X.2005.05907.x 10. Anafarta K. Surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction. Türkiye Klinikleri J Surg Med Sci 2007
  10. 38–44. 11. Aytac IA. McKinlay JB. Krane RJ. The likely worldwide increase in erectile dysfunction between 1995 and 2025 and some possible policy consequences. BJU Int 1999
  11. 50–6. 12. Hatzimouratidis K, et al. Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction: erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. Eur Urol 2010
  12. 804–14. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.02.020 13. Rajpurkar A, Dhabuwala CB. Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice. J Urol 2003
  13. 159–63. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000072524.82345.6d 14. Anafarta K, Safak M, Bedük Y, Baltaci S, Aydos K. Clinical experience with inflatable and malleable penile implants in 104 patients. Urol Int 1996
  14. 100–4. 15. Turna B, Umul M, Altay B, Apaydın E, Semerci B, Çıkılı N. Penil protez yerleştirilmesi cerrahisinde klinik deneyimlerimiz. Türk Ürol Der 20