Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2012 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 1

Antibiyotik ile kaplı ve antibiyotik ile kaplı olmayan penil protez implantasyonu yapılan hastaların postoperatif değerlendirilmesi

Comparing the pre-operative and post-operative data of penile prosthetic implants with and without antibiotics

Pages
14–18
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)

Studies with a larger sample sizes are needed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate surgical results and postoperative results of men diagnosed with organic erectile dysfunction (ED) who underwent penile prosthesis (antibiotic-coated vs. non-coated) implan-tation in the last 13 years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: In the last 13 years, 202 men diagnosed with organic erectile dysfunction (ED) had previously undergone penile prosthesis implantation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Studies with a larger sample sizes are needed.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate surgical results and postoperative results of men diagnosed with organic erectile dysfunction (ED) who underwent penile prosthesis (antibiotic-coated vs. non-coated) implan-tation in the last 13 years. Additionally, we compared the frequency of complications between the two groups. Materials and methods: In the last 13 years, 202 men diagnosed with organic erectile dysfunction (ED) had previously undergone penile prosthesis implantation. Patient data were evaluated retrospectively. Of the 202 patients, 175 were included to the study. The mean age of patients was 57.5 (34-83) years. Preopera-tively, a physical examination, medical and sexual history, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire, Combined Injection and Stimulation (CIS) test and, if necessary, Nocturnal Penile Tumes-cence (NPT) / Penile Doppler ultrasonography (US) were performed in all cases. Results: All patients were diagnosed with organic ED. We determined that 43 (21%) patients had diabetes mellitus, 53 (26%) had a history of radical pelvic surgery, 38 (19%) had cardiovascular pathology and 19 (9%) had other reasons for ED. Approximately 98% of patients and their partners were satisfied with the surgical results of the penile prosthesis operation. Conclusion: The infection rate results in the present study were not statistically significant, and the number of patients in our study was not sufficient to make reliable conclusions. Studies with a larger sample sizes are needed.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı, son 13 yıl içerisinde kliniğimizde organik kaynaklı erektil disfonksiyon (ED) tanısı alan hastalara cerrahi tedavi seçeneği olarak uygulanan antibiyotik kaplı ve antibiyotik kaplı olmayan şişirilebilir penil protez implantasyonunun sonuçlarını; komplikasyon tipi ve sıklığını, iki grup arasında karşılaştırılmaktır. Gereç ve yöntem: Kliniğimizde son 13 yıl süresince, 202 hastaya organik kaynaklı ED tanısıyla penil protez implantasyon operasyonu uygulandı. Hasta verileri geriye dönük olarak değerlendirildi. İkiyüz iki hastalık serimizden 175 vaka çalışmaya alındı. Ortalama yaş 57.5 (34-83)’di. Operasyon öncesinde tüm vakalara ayrıntılı fizik muayene, tıbbi ve seksüel öykü, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) değerlendirmesi, kombine enjeksiyon ve stimülasyon testi (CIS test), gerekliyse nokturnal penil tümesans test (NPT) ve penil Doppler ultrasonografi (US) uygulandı. Bulgular: Hastaların tamamına organik kökenli ED tanısı konulmuş olup, 43 (%21)’ ünde diabetes mellitus, 53 (%26)’ünde radikal pelvik cerrahi öyküsü, 38 (%19)’inde kardiyovasküler patoloji ve 19 (%9)’unda diğer nedenlere bağlı ED varlığı saptandı. Penil protez implantasyonu sonrası takiplerde, hasta ve partner memnuniyetinin %98 düzeyinde olduğu saptandı. Sonuç: Bu çalışmada antibiyotik kaplı ve kaplı olmayan şişirilebilir penil protez implantasyonu yapılan hastalar arasında infeksiyon ve operasyon sonrası hasta ve partner memnuniyet oranları arasında herhangi anlamlı farklılık saptanmamıştır. Bunun değerlendirilmesi için, daha geniş hasta serilerine sahip, iyi planlanmış çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKIN, Y., KOL, A., ŞAHİNER, İ. F., USTA, M. F. (2012). Antibiyotik ile kaplı ve antibiyotik ile kaplı olmayan penil protez implantasyonu yapılan hastaların postoperatif değerlendirilmesi. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 1, 14–18. https://ajindex.com/articles/328054

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Lue TF, Giuliano F, Montorsi F, Rosen RC, Andersson KE, Althof S, et al. Summary of the recommendations on sexual dysfunctions in men. J Sex Med 2004
  2. [CrossRef] 2.Nehra A, Barret D M, Morelan RB. Pharmacotherapeutic advances in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Mayo Clin Proc 1999
  3. [CrossRef] 3.Erdogru T, Usta MF, Koksal T, Soyan H, Baykara M. Penil Protez İmplantasyonunda Hasta Seçimi ve Postoperatif Dönemde Hasta Memnuniyeti. Üroloji Bulteni 2001
  4. Garber BB. Metor alpha 1 inflatable penile prosthesis’ patients satisfaction and device reliability. Urology 1994
  5. [CrossRef] 5.Montague DK, Angermeier KW. Penile prosthesis implantation. Urol Clin North Am 2001
  6. [CrossRef] 6.Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence: use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology 1973
  7. [CrossRef] 7.Mulhall JP, Absaar A, Branch J, Parker M. Serial assessment of efficacy and satisfaction profiles following penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol 2003
  8. [CrossRef] 8.Lue TF. Impotance: A patient’s goal-directed approach to treatment. World J Urol 1990
  9. [CrossRef] 9.Furlow WL. Inflatable penile prosthesis: Mayo clinic experience with 175 patients. Urology 1979
  10. [CrossRef] 10.Kabalin JN, Kessler R. Five-year follow up of the Scott inflatable penile prosthesis and comparison with semirigid penile prosthesis. J Urol 1988
  11. Malloy TR, Wein AJ, Carpiniello VL. Further experience with the inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol 1979
  12. Merrill DC. Clinical experience with Scott inflatable penile prosthesis in 150 patients. Urology 1983
  13. [CrossRef] 13.Montague DK. Experience with semirigid rod and inflatable penile prostheses. J Urol 1983
  14. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med 2007
  15. [CrossRef] 15.Carson CC 3rd. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol 2004
  16. [CrossRef] 16.Wolter CE, Hellstrom WJ. The hydrophilic-coated penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. J Sex Med 2004
  17. [CrossRef] 17.Akkus E, Kadioglu A, Esen A, Doran S, Ergen A, Anafarta K, et al. Turkish Erectile Dysfunction Prevalence Study Group. Prevalence and correlates of erectile dysfunction in Turkey: a population-based study.