Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Penile Prosthesis”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1975

The use of sex therapy in a patient with penile prosthesis.

An implantable penile prosthesis is being used for treatment of erectile organic impotence. A patient treated in this manner required additional therapy for the maladaptive processes in the relationship. Sex therapy including supportive psychotherapy, sex education, relationship therapy, and behavior modification was ultilized for the relationship. This therapy is compatible with the penile prosthesis and may be imperative for some patients

Behavior Therapy↗
PubMed1991

Mechanical complications associated with mentor inflatable penile prosthesis.

The Mentor inflatable penile prosthesis was developed in an attempt to decrease the mechanical failure rate of the various prostheses' components. We herein report on the reliability of the device in 46 men implanted with the Mentor device from December 1982 to June 1987. Prior to manufacturer device modification in 1985, mechanical failure mainly attributable to input tubing cracks occurred in 10 of 30 implantations. Since device improvement in April 1985, the mechanical failure rate has decreased to 4 percent. The Mentor inflatable penile prosthesis has been a mechanically reliable device since design improvement in 1985.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

The G.F.S. Mark II inflatable penile prosthesis.

The G.F.S. Mark II inflatable penile prosthesis was implanted in 80 men who were followed for up to 27 months. In this study there have been no mechanical problems. Of the patients 6 required repositioning of the reservoir pump and 4 required postoperative addition of fluid to the reservoir pump. This study indicates that the revised connectorless G.F.S. Mark II inflatable penile prosthesis has eliminated the previous problems with connectors and tubings. The G.F.S. Mark II inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir pump provides a means of postoperative fluid adjustment within the system performed as an office procedure.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

Negative pressure devices in the explanted penile prosthesis population.

Of 402 penile prosthesis implanted at our institution between 1980 and 1987, 20 required explantation due to infection, erosion, pain or tissue necrosis. Of these 20 patients 14 were available for a prospective trial using a negative pressure device in an attempt to restore potency. Among these 14 patients 11 used the device at home for a minimum of 30 days after an acceptable office demonstration. Three patients did not desire the negative pressure device after an office visit test. Of the 11 home users 10 (91 per cent) reported at least satisfactory erections and successful intercourse. Interestingly, 5 of 6 patients in whom explantation was due to infection were able to use the negative pressure device successfully. Over-all, 10 of the 14 explant patients (71 per cent) engaged in regular successful intercourse using the device. The negative-pressure device can be a useful therapy for erectile impotence even in the sometimes challenging explant population. Despite previous corporeal infection and presumed fibrosis, negative pressure devices can provide patients with a functional erection-like state.

Consumer Behavior↗
PubMed1992

[Implantation of self-contained non-inflatable penile prosthesis in patients with organic impotence].

Between April, 1988 and August, 1990, the OmniPhase penile prosthesis, a non-inflatable self-contained penile prosthesis, was implanted in 34 patients, aged from 37 years to 79 years, averaging 54.2 years. The etiologies of the impotence were radical surgery for bladder cancer or rectal cancer in 17 patients, diabetes mellitus in 7 patients, vascular abnormality in 3 patients, spinal injury in 2 patients, penile disorders in 2 patients and others in 3 patients. Penile prosthesis was implanted by subcoronal incision under spinal or general anesthesia. Clinical results were evaluated 12 weeks after surgery. Thirty-two patients (94.1%) could have intercourse postoperatively. Eighteen patients (52.9%) were completely satisfied and 14 patients (41.2%) were satisfied, whereas one patient (2.9%) had no improvement and another patient (2.9%) deteriorated. There was no serious complication. However, prosthesis was explanted because of skin erosion in one patient. Pain, which lasted for more than 10 days, was seen in 3 patients (8.8%), penile edema in 11 patients (32.4%), and acute epididymitis in one patient. The obtained results showed that implantation of OmniPhase penile prosthesis is a safe and useful procedure for treatment of organic impotence.

Adult↗
PubMed1976

[Surgical treatment of erectile impotence using the AMS penile prosthesis].

First experiences with an AMS penile prosthesis which can hydraulically fill and empty is reported. Advantage of this prosthesis: Physiologic imitation of erection and handling this method. The best cosmetic solution of all previous types of penile prosthesis. Disadvantage: A relatively complicated system and thus liable to defects. However, repairing is, in any case, easily done. After 3 years of use, experience is showing that this method turned out to be a cosmetically and functionally satisfying operative procedure.

Erectile Dysfunction↗
PubMed1991

Outpatient 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis.

The 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis was implanted in 74 consecutive organically impotent outpatients during the last 4 years. The classical infrapubic surgical approach required minor alterations to adapt to the outpatient setting. This cost-reducing technique is safe medically and cogent financially.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Cost-benefit analysis of pharmacologic erection program (PEP) versus penile prosthesis.

We compared the current dollar inclusive costs of the two most commonly implanted penile prostheses with our pharmacologic erection program (PEP). The inclusive cost of implantation for the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is $9,000 and for the malleable penile prosthesis (MPP) $3,150. The inclusive cost of PEP at maximal dose and maximal frequency of use over a five-year period is $3,450. Penile prosthesis was found to be more cost-effective for the long-term treatment of younger impotent men, whereas in the elderly group the use of PEP over a limited time span may be equally or more cost-effective.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1989

Small-bowel obstruction by an inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir.

Early experience with the inflatable penile prosthesis has been plagued with high failure rates. With improvements in design and surgical technique, the relative incidence of mechanical failures has decreased from 69.9% of all complications to 38.2%, increasing the relative importance of pathologic failures (from 27.3% to 56.4%). The overall complication rate has decreased from an initial 32.5% to 9.0% in recent series. A unique case of small-bowel obstruction caused by intraluminal migration of the reservoir of an inflatable penile prosthesis is described. It was successfully managed by resection of the affected bowel loop and extraperitoneal reimplantation of the reservoir. Although general surgeons are not involved in the placement of these devices, it is important for us to be aware of the possibility of erosion and migration of the component parts, which may result in potentially lethal gastrointestinal and other complications that we may be called on to assess.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Management of Peyronie disease by implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis.

Sixty-seven patients with advanced Peyronie disease were treated by implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Twenty-eight of the 67 patients had documented total erectile failure. The remaining 39 patients had significant penile curvature causing "mechanical impotence" due to inability to achieve adequate vaginal penetration and chose implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (in some cases, combined with a straightening procedure) rather than one of the standard penile straightening procedures. Currently, 63 of the 67 patients have functioning prosthetic devices; in 3 other patients the device was removed because of infection, and 1 patient was dissatisfied and had the device removed. For impotent patients with severe Peyronie disease for whom other medical or surgical treatment is neither desirable nor suitable, we recommend implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis combined with a possible straightening procedure.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

Management of preexisting inflatable penile prosthesis during radical retropubic prostatectomy.

A potentially difficult technical situation exists when a man with a functioning inflatable penile prosthesis elects radical prostatectomy as treatment for localized prostate cancer. Between February 1988 and June 1991 we encountered 8 men with a preexisting inflatable penile prosthesis who subsequently underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. In 2 patients the reservoir portion of the prosthesis was in the perivesical space such that radical prostatectomy could be performed without difficulty. However, in 6 patients removal of the reservoir was necessary to complete the prostatectomy. In 3 of these 6 patients the reservoir was replaced at 3 to 6 months after radical prostatectomy and all 3 systems function well. The remaining 3 patients have not yet elected replacement of the reservoir. Only 1 patient had an infection and a complication attributable to the prosthesis. We believe that a preexisting inflatable penile prosthesis should not preclude successful radical retropubic prostatectomy, although temporary removal of the reservoir may be required.

Aged↗
PubMed1978

Surgical management of impotence using the inflatable penile prosthesis: experience with 103 patients.

The inflatable hydraulic penile prosthesis has been implanted in 103 patients with both organic and psychogenic impotence. The 4 failures in this series resulted from infection. Mechanical problems occurred in 27 patients, but with additional implant experience, these have been significantly induced. All mechanical complications are correctable through secondary and tertiary surgical procedures. Ninety-eight of 99 patients with a normally functioning prosthetic device had satisfactory intercourse without significant difficulty. The inflatable penile prosthesis has improved to be a highly satisfactory method of treating male impotence.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

[Critical assessment of penile prosthesis implants: indication, choice of prosthesis, surgical technique and follow-up].

The surgical techniques for penile prosthesis implantation are well known and standardized. Multicomponent hydraulic prosthesis offer, without any doubt, the best guarantees in terms of function and aesthetic results. Nevertheless their insertion is sometime troublesome and a superficial knowledge of the technical problems may lead to complete and disappointing failures. In the present work the Authors report their personal experience with various types of penile prosthesis and describe in details, the different maneuvers which are needed for their correct implantation. Some variation of the original technique will be also described. The results obtained will also be described.

Adult↗
PubMed1979

The penile prosthesis: a review.

This paper reviews the literature concerning the penile prosthesis. Included are discussions of the historical development of the penile prosthesis, characteristics of patients treated with prosthetic implantation, assessment techniques utilized in patient selection, and the relative outcome and complication rates for the two major types of prostheses. Recommendations regarding future research and practice are presented throughout.

Erectile Dysfunction↗
PubMed1991

Patient satisfaction with Mentor inflatable penile prosthesis.

Patient satisfaction with the Mentor inflatable penile prosthesis was assessed by sending a thirty-six-item questionnaire to 251 patients who had undergone implantation of the device by the senior author (D.C.M.). A total of 152 (61%) of the patients responded. Recovery time, satisfaction, reasons for dissatisfaction, perceptions of erection quality, and psychosexual parameters were evaluated. Eight-eight percent of the patients were engaging in regular sexual activity. Depending on the definition of satisfaction, 81-89 percent of the respondents reported that they were satisfied with the prosthesis. Sixty-eight percent of the survey group were satisfied with the length, width, and firmness of their prosthetic-induced erection. The majority of patients reported improvement in psychosexual functioning after implantation. Reasons for dissatisfaction included inadequate penile length, insufficient firmness, and difficulty with inflation and deflation of the penile cylinders.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Experience with Duraphase penile prosthesis: its use as replacement device.

The Duraphase Penile Prosthesis is a new, articulating type of semirigid prosthesis which appears to have several advantages over other semirigid penile prostheses. This series describes the experience with this prosthesis in 12 patients and highlights the experience in 4 patients who underwent removal of other types of prostheses due to mechanical or functional problems and replacement with the Duraphase prosthesis. The device has been mechanically reliable during short follow-up, and there has been excellent patient satisfaction.

Aged↗
PubMed1989

[A clinical evaluation of AMS 700 penile prosthesis in the treatment of impotence].

The AMS 700TM & 700 CXTM penile prosthesis was implanted in 34 organic and mixed-type impotent patients between November, 1984 and July, 1988. The patients' ages ranged between 32 and 70, with an average age of 57.2. Twelve weeks after implantation, the prosthesis was evaluated in terms of patient satisfaction with sexual intercourse and postoperative complications. Twenty three patients (67.7%) were highly satisfied, 7 (20.3%) satisfied, 3 (8.8%) dissatisfied and 1 patient worsened (2.9%). Severe complication was found in two cases, both of them being complicated by infection; as a result the prosthesis was removed. Utility of the prosthesis, e.g. effectiveness and safety was; high utility in 26 cases (76.5%), moderate utility in 7 cases (20.6%), and no favorable in one case (2.9%). Thus, overall effectiveness and safety of the AMS 700 penile prosthesis, with its excellent cosmetic appearance upon implantation, were demonstrated by the above findings.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Erectile response to intracavernous injection of vasoactive drugs after penile prosthesis removal.

Two patients with a history of penile prosthesis removal presented for non-prosthetic treatment of their erectile dysfunction. The first patient had a penile implant for two years before it was removed and showed extensive cavernosal fibrosis. He did not respond to intracavernosal injection of vasoactive drugs. The second patient had the prosthesis for four weeks. He showed no evidence of cavernosal fibrosis and responded well to the intracavernous injection. He has been in an intracavernous autoinjection program for more than one year without complications.

Aged↗