Evaluation of Satisfaction and Outcomes of Patients Who Underwent Two-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation.

erectile dysfunction partner satisfaction patient satisfaction penile prosthesis two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis

Journal

Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Historique:
accepted: 19 06 2022
entrez: 25 7 2022
pubmed: 26 7 2022
medline: 26 7 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Introduction The aim of this study was to evaluate patient and partner satisfaction, device reliability, and complications in patients who underwent two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation. Patients and methods The data of 22 patients who underwent two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation in our department between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed, and a detailed review of all clinical reports was performed. Phone or face-to-face interviews were undertaken to assess the satisfaction rates of the patients and their partners using the modified Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire. Results The mean patient age and partner age were 57.95 ± 6.16 and 58.12 ± 6.66 years, respectively. The mean erectile dysfunction (ED) period was 5.33 ± 2.16 years, and the etiologies of erectile dysfunction were radical pelvic surgery (41%), diabetes mellitus (37%), and vascular disorders (22%). The mean operative time and postoperative hospital stay were 102 ± 29 minutes and 1.8 ± 0.66 days, respectively. Over a mean follow-up period of 29.04 ± 14.48 months, two (9%) cases underwent revision surgery due to mechanical device failure in one and infection in the other. The overall patient and partner satisfaction rates were 73% and 59%, respectively. Conclusions The two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis is an effective, reliable, and user-friendly prosthesis with acceptable complication and revision rates and provides a high level of patient and partner satisfaction in selected and fully informed patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35875283
doi: 10.7759/cureus.26097
pmc: PMC9298674
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e26097

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022, Pazir et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

Int Braz J Urol. 2015 May-Jun;41(3):535-41
pubmed: 26200547
Eur Urol. 2007 Apr;51(4):1128-31
pubmed: 17084508
Int J Impot Res. 2016 Jan-Feb;28(1):4-8
pubmed: 26657316
Urology. 1999 Apr;53(4):793-9
pubmed: 10197859
Urology. 2001 Jan;57(1):138-41
pubmed: 11164159
J Sex Med. 2011 Jul;8(7):1996-2001
pubmed: 21569210
J Urol. 2016 Feb;195(2):427-33
pubmed: 26292043
J Sex Med. 2008 Jun;5(6):1503-12
pubmed: 18410306
J Urol. 2001 Sep;166(3):932-7
pubmed: 11490249
J Sex Med. 2018 Mar;15(3):410-415
pubmed: 29339015
J Sex Med. 2013 Nov;10(11):2774-81
pubmed: 24034543
J Urol. 2007 Jan;177(1):262-6
pubmed: 17162061
Eur Urol. 2010 Feb;57(2):334-40
pubmed: 19303200
Urol Pract. 2019 May;6(3):155-158
pubmed: 31372371
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016 Mar 31;88(1):1-3
pubmed: 27072167

Auteurs

Yasar Pazir (Y)

Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, TUR.

Fatih Yanaral (F)

Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, TUR.

Ufuk Caglar (U)

Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, TUR.

Mazhar Ortac (M)

Department of Urology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, TUR.

Omer Sarilar (O)

Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, TUR.

Faruk Ozgor (F)

Department of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, TUR.

Classifications MeSH