Rigiscan versus snap gauge band measurements: Is the extra cost justifiable?

International Journal of Impotence Research

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 315-318

  Chen, J ^a   Greenstein, A ^a   Sofer, M ^a   Matzkin, H ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Impotence; Penile rigidity; Rigiscan; Snap Gauge Band

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; PENIS ERECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0033383171     PISSN: 09559930     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3900438     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Kessler WO. Nocturnal penile tumescence. Urol Clin North Am 1988; 15: 81-86.
2. Bradley WE, Timm GW, Gallagher JM, Johnson BK. New method for continuous measurement of nocturnal penile tumescence and rigidity. Urology 1985; 26: 4-9.
3. Levine LA, and Lenting EL. Use of nocturnal penile tumescence and rigidity in the evaluation of male erectile dysfunction. Urol Clinc North Am 1995; 22: 775-788.
4. Ek A, Bradley WE, Krane BJ. Nocturnal penile rigidity measured by the Snap-Gauge band. J Urol 1983; 129: 964-976.
5. Allen J et al. Snap Gauge band Vs multidisciplinary evaluation in impotence assessment. Urology 1988; 34: 197-199.
6. Tscholl R et al. Incidence of erectile impotence secondary to transurethral resection of benign prostate hyperplasia, assessed by preoperative and postoperative Snap Gauge tests. J Urol 1995; 153: 1491-1493.
7. Bradley WF. New technique in evaluation of impotence. Urology 1987; 29: 383-388.