SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Erciyes Tıp Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 4

Penil protez implantasyonu sonuçlarının klinik değerlendirmesi ve partner memnuniyeti

Clinical evaluation of outcomes of penile prosthesis implantation and partner satisfaction

Adem ALTUNKOL
Halil ÇİFTÇİ
Ediz VURUŞKAN
Ferhat ORTOĞLU
Hakan ERÇİL
Nevzat Can ŞENER
Sabahattin CEBER
Pages
148–151
Publication Date
2022-10-17
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)

Patients using the malleabledevice found it easier to use (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We aimed to compare the outcomes of malleable and infatable penile prosthesis implantations and partner satisfaction.Materials and Methods: Data of 34 patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation in two centers between September2009 and March 2013 were retrospectively analyzed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Types of prosthesis and complication rates were compared.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Patients using the malleabledevice found it easier to use (p
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to compare the outcomes of malleable and infatable penile prosthesis implantations and partner satisfaction.Materials and Methods: Data of 34 patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation in two centers between September2009 and March 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Types of prosthesis and complication rates were compared. A telephoneinterview was performed to assess the satisfaction rates of patients and their partners by EDITS (Erectile Dysfunction Inventoryof Treatment Satisfaction) questionnaire.Results: The mean age was 56.16±14.49 years for Group 1 and 58.13±10.41 years for Group 2. The mean follow-up dura-tions for Groups 1 and 2 were 29.39±9.38 and 24.13±10.27 months, respectively. The mean hospital stay was 3.56±2.85and 3.38±2.27 days for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. No signifcant difference was observed in terms of age, hospital stay, andfollow-up duration between groups. Satisfaction questions were similar between the two groups. Patients using the malleabledevice found it easier to use (p

Özet

Amaç: Biz yumuşak ve şişebilir penil protez implantasyonlarının sonuçlarını ve partner memnuniyetini kıyaslamayı amaçladık. Materyal ve Metot: Eylül 2009 ile Mart 2013 arasında iki merkezde penil protez implantasyonu yapılan 34 hastanın verileri retrospektif olarak analiz edildi. Protez tipi ve komplikasyon oranları karşılaştırıldı. Hastaların ve partnerlerinin memnuniyet oranlarını değerlendirmek için EDITS anketi (Erektil Disfonksiyon Tedaviden Memnuniyet Envanteri) ile bir telefon görüşmesi yapıldı. Bulgular: Yaş ortalaması Grup 1 için 56.16±14.49 yıl ve Grup 2 için 58.13±10.41 yıl idi. Grup 1 ve 2 için takip süreleri sırasıyla 29.39±9.38 ve 24.13±10.27 aydı. Ortalama hastanede yatış süresi Grup 1 ve 2 için sırasıyla 3.56±2.85 ve 3.38±2.27 gündü. Yaş, hastanede kalış ve takip süresi açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı bir fark gözlenmedi. Memnuniyet durumu iki grup arasında benzerdi. Yumuşak cihaz kullanan hastalar kullanımını daha kolay buldu (p

🔖

Cite This Article

ALTUNKOL, A., ÇİFTÇİ, H., VURUŞKAN, E., ORTOĞLU, F., ERÇİL, H., ŞENER, N. C., CEBER, S. (2022). Penil protez implantasyonu sonuçlarının klinik değerlendirmesi ve partner memnuniyeti. Erciyes Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 4, 148–151. https://ajindex.com/articles/502338

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Wespes E, Eardley I, Guiliano F, Hatzichristou D, Hatzimouratidis K, Moncada A et al. Guidelines on Male Sexual Dysfunction: Erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. Uroweb 2013
  2. Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, Krane RJ, McKinlay JB. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Urol 1994; 151(1): 54-61
  3. Şimşek A, Kurt Ö, Özbek E, İlbey YÖ, Özcan L, Ersöz C. Penil protez implantasyonu: Otuz olgunun değerlendirilmesi. J Kartal TR 2009; 20(3): 130-3
  4. Bae JH, Song PH, Kim HT, Moon KH. Assessment of erectile and ejaculatory function after penile prosthesis implantation. Korean J Urol 2010; 51(3): 202-7. [CrossRef] 5. Villarreal HG, Jones L. Outcomes of and satisfaction with the infatable penile prosthesis in the elderly male. Adv Urol 2012; 2012: 240963 6. Al-Enezi A, Al-Khadhari S, Al-Shaiji TF. Three-piece infatable penile prosthesis: Surgical Techniques and Pitfalls. J Surg Tech Case Rep 2011; 3(2): 76-83. [CrossRef] 7. Bettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, Palazzo S, Saracino GA, Martino P, et al. Penile prostheses. Ther Adv Urol 2010; 2(1): 35-40. [CrossRef] 8. Falcone M, Rolle L, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Sedigh O, Preto M, et al. Prospective analysis of the surgical outcomes and patients’ satisfaction rate after the AMS Spectra penile prosthesis implantation. Urology 2013; 82(2): 373-6. [CrossRef] 9. Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, Levine F, Burnett AL, McVary K, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology 1999; 53(4): 793-9. [CrossRef] 10. Anafarta K, Safak M, Bedük Y, Baltaci S, Aydos K. Clinical experience with infatable and malleable penile implants in 104 patients. Urol Int 1996; 56(2): 100-4. [CrossRef] 11. Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, Levine LA. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for there designed 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol 2007; 177(1): 262-6. [CrossRef] 12. Turna B, Umul M, Altay B, Apaydın E, Semerci B, Çıkılı N. Penil protez yerleştirilmesi cerrahisinde klinik deneyimlerimiz. Türk Üroloji Dergisi 2007; 33(2): 151-5
  5. Souillac I, Pignot G, Galiano M, Hastert V, Sibaud O, Virag R. Infatable penile prostheses: results, complications and prognostic factors. Prog Urol 2009; 19(8): 563-71. [CrossRef] 14. Carreno Rodríguez J, Martínez Abreu J, Toledo Viera A. Clinical evolution in patients with penile prosthesis implant. Arch. Esp Urol 2009; 62(6): 466-72
  6. Talas H, Reşor