Is there still a place for malleable penile implants in the United States? Wilson's Workshop #18.
Journal
International journal of impotence research
ISSN: 1476-5489
Titre abrégé: Int J Impot Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9007383
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
08
08
2020
accepted:
05
11
2020
revised:
30
08
2020
medline:
30
3
2023
pubmed:
5
12
2020
entrez:
4
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The use of semirigid rod penile prosthesis for the management of erectile dysfunction was first described over 85 years ago. Since then, there have been numerous design advancements leading to improved overall durability, concealability, rigidity, and natural feel. However, the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) still has a higher patient satisfaction rate and is currently the most commonly inserted prostheses in the United States. There are still certain situations and conditions where the simplicity of a rod may be preferred over an IPP. A pair of semirigid rods has been shown to have less risk of malfunction and need for revision surgery. In addition, patients with poor manual dexterity, those undergoing a salvage for infection prosthesis and those with a prolonged (> 48 h) priapic episode may be better served with a rod than an IPP. Finally, in patients compromised by infection or priapism, the rods can later successfully be exchanged for an IPP with potentially longer, wider cylinders with resultant greater patient satisfaction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33273715
doi: 10.1038/s41443-020-00376-6
pii: 10.1038/s41443-020-00376-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
82-89Informations de copyright
© 2020. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
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;151:54–61.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)34871-1
pubmed: 8254833
Burnett AL, Nehra A, Breau RH, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, et al. Erectile dysfunction: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2018;200:633–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.004
pubmed: 29746858
Gee WF. A history of surgical treatment of impotence. Urology. 1975;05:401–5.
doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(75)90168-5
pubmed: 1091068
Goodwin WE, Scott WW. Phalloplasty. J Urol. 1952;68:903–8.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)68301-0
pubmed: 13000938
Beheri GE. Surgical treatment of impotence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1966;38:92–7.
doi: 10.1097/00006534-196608000-00002
pubmed: 5913185
Pearman RO. Treatment of organic impotence by implantation of a penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1967;97:716–9.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)63104-5
pubmed: 6022438
Small MP, Carrion HM, Gordon JA. Small-Carrion penile prosthesis. New implant for management of impotence. Urology. 1975;5:479–86.
doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(75)90071-0
pubmed: 1093303
Henry GD. Historical review of penile prosthesis design and surgical techniques: part 1 of a three-part review series on penile prosthetic surgery. J Sex Med. 2009;6:675–81.
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01145.x
pubmed: 19207278
Sadeghi-Nejad H. Penile prosthesis surgery: a review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med. 2007;4:296–309.
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00434.x
pubmed: 17367425
Subrini L. A biomechanical study of flexible penile implants. Ann Urol. 1993;27:192–6.
Ferguson KH, Cespedes RD. Prospective long-term results and quality-of-life assessment after Dura-II penile prosthesis placement. Urology. 2003;61:437–41.
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02270-7
pubmed: 12597963
Eland IA, van der Lei J, Stricker BH, Sturkenboom MJ. Incidence of priapism in the general population. Urology. 2001;57:970–2.
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(01)00941-4
pubmed: 11337305
Kohler TS, Wen L, Wilson SK. Penile implant infection prevention part 1: what is fact and what is fiction? Int J Impot Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-o20-0326-5 .
Stein DM, Flum AS, Cashy J, Zhao LC, McVary KT. Nationwide emergency department visits for priapism in the United States. J Sex Med. 2013;10:2418–22.
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12251
pubmed: 23841493
Tausch TJ, Zhao LC, Morey AF, Siegel JA, Belsante MJ, Seideman CA, et al. Malleable penile prosthesis is a cost-effective treatment for refractory ischemic priapism. J Sex Med. 2015;12:824–6.
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12803
pubmed: 25536880
Ralph DJ, Garaffa G, Muneer A, Freeman A, Rees R, Christopher AN, et al. The immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis for acute ischaemic priapism. Eur Urol. 2009;56:1033–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.044
pubmed: 18930579
Zacharakis E, Garaffa G, Raheem AA, Christopher AN, Muneer A, Ralph DJ. Penile prosthesis insertion in patients with refractory ischaemic priapism: early vs delayed implantation. BJU Int. 2014;114:576–81.
doi: 10.1111/bju.12686
pubmed: 25383397
Sedigh O, Rolle L, Negro CL, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Galletto E, et al. Early insertion of inflatable prosthesis for intractable ischemic priapism: our experience and review of the literature. Int J Impot Res. 2011;23:158–64.
doi: 10.1038/ijir.2011.23
pubmed: 21654814
Zacharakis E, De Luca F, Raheem AA, Garaffa G, Christopher N, Muneer A;etal. Early insertion of a malleable penile prosthesis in ischaemic priapism allows later upsizing of the cylinders. Scand J Urol. 2015;49:468–71.
doi: 10.3109/21681805.2015.1059359
pubmed: 26116193
Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ. The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1996;155:155–7.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66580-7
pubmed: 7490819
Mulcahy JJ. Long-term experience with salvage of infected penile implants. J Urol. 2000;163:481–2.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67906-2
pubmed: 10647660
Pineda M, Burnett AL. Penile prosthesis infections-a review of risk factors, prevention, and treatment. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:389–98.
doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.03.003
pubmed: 27872031
Kohler TS, Modder JK, Dupree JM, Bush NC, McVary KT. Malleable implant substitution for the management of penile prosthesis pump erosion: a pilot study. J Sex Med. 2009;6:1474–8.
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01236.x
pubmed: 19453933
Gross MS, Phillips EA, Balen A, Eid JF, Yang C, Simon R, et al. The malleable implant salvage technique: infection outcomes after mulcahy salvage procedure and replacement of infected inflatable penile prosthesis with malleable prosthesis. J Urol. 2016;195:694–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.091
pubmed: 26343986
Habous M, Tealab A, Farag M, Soliman T, Williamson B, Mahmoud S, et al. Malleable penile implant is an effective therapeutic option in men with peyronie’s disease and erectile dysfunction. Sex Med. 2018;6:24–29.
doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2017.10.004
pubmed: 29336942
pmcid: 5815935
Ghanem HM, Fahmy I, el-Meliegy A. Malleable penile implants without plaque surgery in the treatment of Peyronie’s disease. Int J Impot Res. 1998;10:171–3.
doi: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3900324
pubmed: 9788106
Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, Bergamaschi F, Rigatti P. Patient-partner satisfaction with semirigid penile prostheses for Peyronie’s disease: a 5-year followup study. J Urol. 1993;150:1819–21.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)35904-9
pubmed: 8230513
Kim YD, Yang SO, Lee JK, Jung TY, Shim HB. Usefulness of a malleable penile prosthesis in patients with a spinal cord injury. Int J Urol. 2008;15:919–23.27.
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02115.x
pubmed: 18651861
Zermann DH, Kutzenberger J, Sauerwein D, Schubert J, Loeffler U. Penile prosthetic surgery in neurologically impaired patients: long-term followup. J Urol. 2006;175(3 Pt 1):1041–4. discussion 1044.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00344-7
pubmed: 16469612
Lacy JM, Walker J, Gupta S, Davenport DL, Preston DM. Risk factors for removal or revision of penile prostheses in the veteran population. Urology. 2016;98:189–94.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.06.039
pubmed: 27375071
Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int. 2006;97:129–33.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05907.x
pubmed: 16336342
Casabe AR, Sarotto N, Gutierrez C, Bechara AJ. Satisfaction assessment with malleable prosthetic implant of Spectra (AMS) and Genesis (Coloplast) models. Int J Impot Res. 2016;28:228–33.
doi: 10.1038/ijir.2016.33
pubmed: 27557609