-
Archivio Italiano Di Urologia,... Jun 2024Erectile dysfunction can cause self-withdrawal and decreased quality of life. Patients who do not respond to pharmacological therapy and other conservative treatments... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Erectile dysfunction can cause self-withdrawal and decreased quality of life. Patients who do not respond to pharmacological therapy and other conservative treatments are urged to undergo penile prosthesis implantation. Malleable penile prosthesis was the first prosthesis developed, but then inflatable penile prosthesis was developed to give a more natural erection. There is no meta-analysis comparing inflatable and malleable penile prostheses in terms of safety and efficacy. This study is conducted to evaluate patient and partner satisfaction, ease of use, mechanical failure, and infection rate in patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation.
METHOD
This meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocols. Five eligible studies were included from Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and SemanticScholar databases.
RESULT
In this study, patient and partner satisfaction are significantly better (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.66-6.93, p = 0.0008) (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.75-3.08, p < 0.00001). Mechanical failure is also significantly higher in inflatable penile prostheses (OR 5.60, 95% CI 2.02-15.53, p = 0.0009). There is no significant difference in terms of ease of use and infection rate in inflatable or malleable penile prostheses.
CONCLUSIONS
This study concluded that inflatable penile prosthesis is better in terms of patient and partner satisfaction, but mechanical failures occur more frequently in this type of prosthesis.
Topics: Humans; Male; Erectile Dysfunction; Penile Prosthesis; Patient Satisfaction; Prosthesis Design; Penile Implantation; Treatment Outcome; Quality of Life; Prosthesis Failure
PubMed: 38934528
DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2024.12353 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Apr 2024Penile prosthetic devices are the standard treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED) after failure of maximum medical therapy and conservative options. Several penile... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Penile prosthetic devices are the standard treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED) after failure of maximum medical therapy and conservative options. Several penile lengthening procedures (PLPs) can be performed concurrently with penile prosthesis (PP) insertion in patients with severe ED, penile shortening, and/or Peyronie's disease to help combat negative emotional and psychological concerns from penile length loss with penile prosthetic device placement.
METHODS
An extensive, systematic literature review of the various pre-, intra-, and post-operative techniques that can be applied to preserve, restore or enhance penile length at the time of penile prosthetic implantation.
RESULTS
Numerous pre-operative and post-operative inflation protocols exists with vacuum erection devices and penile traction therapy. Intraoperative surgical techniques include cavernosal sparing and channeling without dilatation, subcoronal incision with circumferential penile degloving and grafting, the sliding technique, the modified sliding technique, the multiple-slit technique, the tunical expansion procedure (TEP), modified TEP, and the auxetic expansion procedure. These approaches can be meaningful to restore and/or preserve length for patients undergoing PP insertion.
CONCLUSIONS
PLPs can be performed by surgeons who have extensive penile reconstruction experience and have been trained to do these procedures, as there is significant risk to the patient and limitations to what can be expected. Each patient must be counseled in detail about the risks and benefits of these procedures and have their expectations managed as the average postoperative penile length recovery is around 3 cm and can range from 0-4.0 cm. Future research is needed to identify the appropriate candidate for each approach, and how much length gain the patient can expect.
PubMed: 38721300
DOI: 10.21037/tau-23-354 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Apr 2024Priapism is a rare condition characterized by persistent erection of the penis that lasts more than 4 hours in the absence of sexual stimulation and is associated with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Priapism is a rare condition characterized by persistent erection of the penis that lasts more than 4 hours in the absence of sexual stimulation and is associated with significant morbidity and complications, including erectile dysfunction and penile fibrosis. Surgical management of priapism can be extremely challenging. We herein provide a comprehensive review that aims to evaluate the role of penile prosthesis (PP) implantation in the management of priapism.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus to identify studies that evaluated the effectiveness of PP implantation in treating priapism and the long-term complications, outcomes, and patients' satisfaction rate.
RESULTS
Out of 717 English-language studies published between 2002 and 2022, 17 were chosen for this review. Majority of patients had a malleable PP (MPP) implant, either early or delayed after the priapism episode. Early placement (EP) of PP is widely defined between studies ranging from less than 72 hours, within 1 week, and within 3 weeks. Most common causes of priapism were sickle cell anemia (SCA), medication-induced, and idiopathic. Studies show a higher satisfaction rate ranging between 80% and 100%, with sexual intercourse achievement ranging between 64.2% and 100%. Based on the GRADE system, included studies rated as very low quality of evidence. Commonly reported complications that arise after PP procedures, include device infection, erosion, curvature, and mechanical malfunction, such as auto-inflation.
CONCLUSIONS
PP can be an effective treatment option for priapism, particularly in cases of ischemic priapism lasting more than 36 hours or recurrent priapism that is medically refractory. However, due to the very low quality of evidence, larger, well-designed studies are warranted where long-term outcomes, patients' satisfaction, and complications following priapism-related PP implantation are measured as endpoints.
PubMed: 38721288
DOI: 10.21037/tau-23-224 -
Narra J Aug 2023Prostate cancer treatment can significantly impact erectile function, and penile rehabilitation has been proposed to improve the impacts. However, the effectiveness of...
Prostate cancer treatment can significantly impact erectile function, and penile rehabilitation has been proposed to improve the impacts. However, the effectiveness of penile rehabilitations after treatment of prostate cancer is scarce. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of different interventions of penile rehabilitation program after prostate cancer treatment. We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases, PubMed and Google Scholar, to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated interventions for penile rehabilitation after prostate cancer treatment. Studies that met our inclusion criteria were systematically reviewed, and data were synthesized and analyzed. We identified 11 randomized controlled trials that evaluated different interventions for penile rehabilitation after prostate cancer treatment. The interventions included the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, intracavernous injections, vacuum erection devices, and penile rehabilitation programs. The data suggest that these phosphodiesterase inhibitors, intracavernous injections, vacuum erection devices, and penile rehabilitation programs are promising in improving erectile function after prostate cancer treatment. However, the optimal timing and duration of these interventions remain unclear, and there is a need for further research to determine their long-term effectiveness and safety. Healthcare providers should consider individualized approaches to penile rehabilitation, taking into account patient characteristics and preferences.
PubMed: 38454969
DOI: 10.52225/narra.v3i2.174