Penile prosthesis in treatment of erectile dysfunction: 13‐year experience

Authors

  • Luís Sepúlveda Serviço de Urologia, Centro Hospitalar de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (CHTMAD), Vila Real, Portugal
  • Ana Meireles Serviço de Cirurgia Plástica e Queimados, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Coimbra (CHUC), Coimbra, Portugal
  • Pedro Moreira Serviço de Urologia e Transplantação Renal, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Coimbra (CHUC), Coimbra, Portugal
  • Henrique Dinis Serviço de Urologia e Transplantação Renal, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Coimbra (CHUC), Coimbra, Portugal
  • Vera Marques Serviço de Urologia e Transplantação Renal, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Coimbra (CHUC), Coimbra, Portugal
  • Francisco Rolo Serviço de Urologia e Transplantação Renal, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Coimbra (CHUC), Coimbra, Portugal
  • Alfredo Mota Serviço de Urologia e Transplantação Renal, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Coimbra (CHUC), Coimbra, Portugal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24915/aup.33.3.32

Keywords:

Erectile dysfunction, Treatment, Penile prosthesis, Satisfaction

Abstract

Introduction and Objectives
Penile prosthesis implantation is a common, well‐established treatment for correcting medical refractory erectile dysfunction. Although more invasive than some of the other currently available therapies, PP surgery has the advantages of high patient satisfaction rates. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical results and patient satisfaction after implantation of PP in 25 patients treated at the University Hospital of Coimbra (CHUC).

Material and Methods
We evaluated 25 patients with erectile dysfunction who underwent implantation of PP, inflatable and semi‐rigid, between November 2000 and November 2013. The information was obtained from medical records and telephone interviews and encompassed clinical severity, comorbidity, etiology, PP type, surgical complications, need for reintervention and degree of patient satisfaction.

Results
88% of patients had severe ED. The main etiologies reported were: multifactorial (46.4%), atherogenic (24%) and neurologic (16%). Most devices implanted were inflatable prostheses (84%). In 80% of the cases there were no complications reported; the rate of re‐intervention was 20%. There were a high percentage of satisfied / very satisfied patients (65%).

Discussion/Conclusion
PP surgery remains an excellent alternative in restoring erectile function in patients whose medical therapies have failed. Despite its invasive nature, the implementation of PP has proven to be associated with a low rate of complications and a high degree of patient satisfaction.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Jara J, Lledó E. Historical approach to the surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction. Actas Urol Esp. 2013;37:445-50.

2. Hatzimouratidis K, Amar E, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Montorsi F, et al. Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction: Erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. Eur Urol. 2010;57:804-14.

3. Morales J, Rolo F. Epidemiologia da disfunc¸ão erétil: revisão de literatura. Acta Urol Port. 2001;18:31-4.

4. Teles AG, Carreira M, Alarcão V, Sociol D, Aragüés JM, Lopes L, et al. Prevalence, severity, and risk factors for erectile dysfunction in a representative sample of 3,548 portuguese men aged 40 to 69 years attending primary healthcare centers: Results of the Portuguese erectile dysfunction study. J Sex Med. 2008;5:1317--4.

5. Siddiqi K, Lewis RW. Surgical therapy for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008;5:174-5.

6. Carreno Rodríguez J, Martínez Abreu J, Toledo Viera A. Clinical evolution in patients with penile prosthesis implant. Arch Esp Urol. 2009;62:466-72.

7. Hellstrom WJG, Montague DK, Moncada I, Carson C, Minhas S, Faria G, et al. Implants, mechanical devices, and vascular surgery for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2010;7 1 Pt 2:501-23.

8. Derby CA, Araujo AB, Johannes CB, Feldman HA, McKinlay JB. Measurement of erectile dysfunction in population-based studies: The use of a single question self-assessment in the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. Int J Impot Res. 2000;12:197-204.

9. Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Gendrano N. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A state-of-the-science review. Int J Impot Res. 2002;14:226-44.

10. O’Leary MP, Rhodes T, Girman CJ, Jacobson DJ, Roberts RO, Lieber MM, et al. Distribution of the Brief Male Sexual Inventory in community men. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15:185-91.

11. Grant P, Jackson G, Baig I, Quin J. Erectile dysfunction in general medicine. Clin Med. 2013;13:136-40.

12. McCullough AR. Prevention and management of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 2001;28:613-27.

13. Evans C. The use of penile prostheses in the treatment of impotence. Br J Urol. 1998;81:591-8.

14. Trost LW, Baum N, Hellstrom WJG. Managing the difficult penile prosthesis patient. J Sex Med. 2013;10:893-906.

15. Sadeghi-Nejad H. Penile prosthesis surgery: A review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med. 2007;4:296-309.

16. Mulcahy JJ, Austoni E, Barada JH, Choi HK, Hellstrom WJ, Hellstrom WJG, et al. The penile implant for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2004;1:98-109.

17. Selph JP, Carson CC. Penile prosthesis infection: Approaches to prevention and treatment. Urol Clin North Am. 2011;38: 227-35.

Published

2017-04-10

Issue

Vol. 33 No. 3 (2016): Setembro-Dezembro

Section

Original Article