Current role of penile implants for erectile dysfunction

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 375-380

  Moncada, Ignacio ^a,b,c   Martinez Salamanca, Juan Ignacio ^a   Allona, Antonio ^b   Hernandez, Carlos ^a  

^a HOSPITAL GENERAL UNIVERSITARIO GREGORIO MARAÑÓN   (Spain)

^b Ruber International Hospital   (Spain)

^c NONE   (Spain)

Author keywords

Erectile dysfunction; Infection of penile implants; Penile prosthesis

Indexed keywords

PHOSPHODIESTERASE V INHIBITOR;

CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; DEVICE; DEVICE INFECTION; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PENIS PROSTHESIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMPLANTATION; REOPERATION; REVIEW; SEXUAL FUNCTION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HUMANS; IMPOTENCE; MALE; PENILE IMPLANTATION; PENILE PROSTHESIS; PROSTHESIS-RELATED INFECTIONS;

EID: 8644249184     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00042307-200411000-00014     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Carson CC. Penile prostheses: are they still relevant? BJU Int 2003; 91:176-177.
2. Montague DK, Angermeier KW. Contemporary aspects of penile prosthesis implantation. Urol Int 2003; 70:141-146. This review was undertaken to examine the contemporary role of penile prosthesis implantation in the treatment of this disorder. A Medline search was performed on the topic of penile prostheses and implants. Current literature was reviewed with regard to types of penile implants, issues related to prosthesis implantation, results, and patient/partner satisfaction.
3. O'Leary M, Bazian Ltd. Erectile dysfunction. Clin Evid 2002; (8):872-880.
4. Cakan M, Demirel F, Karabacak O, et al. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. Int Urol Nephrol 2003; 35:209-213. In this paper, the role of some risk factors for prosthetic infection are retrospectively investigated.
5. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN. Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology 2003; 62:918-921.
6. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR, et al. Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol 2004; 172:153-156. To explain the higher risk of infection in revision surgery a prospective study was conducted. Seventy-seven clinically uninfected prostheses requiring revision were systematically cultured. The majority of these clinically uninfected penile prostheses had organisms growing in the implant spaces at reoperation.
7. Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N Engl J Med 2004; 350:1422-1429. The four objectives of this review of infections associated with a variety of surgical implants are to describe the clinical and economic effects, address diagnostic challenges, discuss the general principles of medical and surgical treatment, and analyze implant-specific therapeutic approaches.
8. Mulcahy JJ. Treatment alternatives for the infected penile implant. Int J Impotence Res 2003; 15 (Suppl 5):S147-S149 This author presents his outstanding experience with the salvage procedure for prosthesis infection.
9. Carson CC. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol 2004; 171:1611-1614. This retrospective study was designed to analyze the efficacy of antibiotic-coated cylinders of penile prostheses for the prevention of prosthesis infection. The use of InhibiZone to target postoperative infections resulted in a statistically significant decrease in penile prosthesis infection rates in original implants.
10. Hellstrom WJ, Hyun JS, Human L, et al. Antimicrobial activity of antibiotic-soaked, Resist-coated Bioflex. Int J Impot Res 2003; 15:18-21. This paper discusses the contribution of this new prosthetic material in preventing adhesion to and colonization of penile implants by some microorganisms, thus reducing the chances of infection.
11. Hsu GL, Hsieh CH, Wen HS, et al. Outpatient penile implantation with the patient under a novel method of crural block. Int J Androl 2004; 27:147-151. The authors report on an innovative penile crural block using local anesthesia in patients undergoing penile implantation as outpatient surgery.
12. Montague DK, Angermeir KW. Surgical approaches for penile prosthesis implantation: penoscrotal vs infrapubic. Int J Impot Res 2003; 15 (Suppl 5):S134-S135.
13. Wilson SK, Delk JR II, Henry GD, Siegel AL. New surgical technique for sphincter urinary control system using upper transverse scrotal incision. J Urol 2003; 169:261-264.
14. Hellstrom WJ. Three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis components (surgical pearls on reservoirs, pumps, and rear-tip extenders). Int J Impot Res 2003; 15 (Suppl 5):S136-S138.
15. da Justa DG, Bianco FJ Jr, Ogle A, Dhabuwala CB. Deep venous thrombosis due to compression of external iliac vein by the penile prosthesis reservoir. Urology 2003; 61:462v-462vi.
16. Rajpurkar A, Bianco FF Jr, Al-Omar O, et al. Fate of the retained reservoir after replacement of 3-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol 2004; 172:664-666. In this article, patients who underwent surgery for implant malfunction were evaluated; the objective was to determine whether retaining the reservoir was associated with an increased risk of erosion or infection.
17. Wilson SK. Reimplantation of inflatable penile prosthesis into scarred corporeal bodies. Int J Impot Res 2003; 15 (Suppl 5):S125-S128. The author of this communication describes newer tools and techniques to enhance placement of an inflatable device in patients with severe fibrosis. This includes the use of specially designed cavernotomes for dilating fibrotic corpora and the use of downsized prosthetic cylinders.
18. Montague DK, Angermeier KW. Cylinder sizing: less is more. Int J Impot Res 2003; 15 (Suppl 5):S132-S133.
19. Thiel DD, Broderick GA, Bridges M. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating inflatable penile prosthesis malfunction and complaints. Int J Impot Res 2003; 15 (Suppl 5):S155-S161.
20. Moncada I, Hernandez C, Jara J, et al. Buckling of cylinders may cause prolonged penile pain after prosthesis implantation: a case control study using magnetic resonance imaging of the penis. J Urol 1998; 160:67-71.
21. Salama N. Satisfaction with the malleable penile prosthesis among couples from the Middle East: is it different from that reported elsewhere? Int J Impot Res 2004; 16:175-180.
22. Rajpurkar A, Dhabuwala CB. Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice. J Urol 2003; 170:159-163. The authors of this study compared erectile function status and satisfaction rates in patients who received treatment for erectile dysfunction with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery. At a mean follow up of 19.54 months, patients who underwent penile implant surgery had significantly better erectile function and treatment satisfaction than those receiving sildenafil citrate and intracavernous prostaglandin E1.
23. Manning M, Martinez FJ, Alken P, Junemann KP. Spontaneous tumescence after implantation of three-piece hydraulic penile prostheses: a short-term experience. Int J Impot Res 2003; 15:152-155.
24. Mulhall JP, Jahoda A, Aviv N, et al. The impact of sildenafil citrate on sexual satisfaction profiles in men with a penile prosthesis in situ. BJU Int 2004; 93:97-99.
25. Lledo E, Moncada I. Tratamiento con sildenafilo del sindrome del glande frio tras implante de prótests hidráulica de pene [Treatment with sildenafil of cold-glans syndrome after hydraulic penile prosthesis implantation]. Actas Urol Esp 2004; 28:443-446.