Penil Protez İmplantasyon Cerrahisi Klinik Sonuçları

Year 2016, Volume: 43 Issue: 2, 261 - 264, 01.06.2016

Onur Dede Mansur Dağgulli Mazhar Utangaç Murat Atar Gülay Dede

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada çok parçalı şişirilebilir penil protez
cerrahisi yapılan hastaların sonuçlarını değerlendirmeyi
amaçladık.
Yöntemler: Mayıs 2010 Aralık 2015 tarihleri arasında
penil protez cerrahisi yapılan 52 hastanın verileri geriye
dönük değerlendirildi. Protezlerin cinsi, başarı ve komplikasyon
oranları kaydedildi. Hasta memnuniyetini değerlendirmek
için EDITS (Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of
Treatment Satisfaction) formu kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Ortalama hasta yaşı 49,2±14,7 yıl idi. Ortalama
takip süresi 34,3±12,5 ay idi. Ortalama hastanede kalış
3,84±1,52 gün olarak bulundu. Çiftlerin değerlendirilmesinde
44 (%84) çift oldukça memnun olduklarını söyledi.
Penil protez yerleştirildikten sonra hiçbir hastada protez
çıkarılması gerektirecek komplikasyon olmadı.
Sonuç: Şişirilebilir penil protez cerrahisi organik erektil
disfonksiyon tedavisinde yüksek başarı oranı, hasta ve
partner memnuniyeti ve kabul edilebilir komplikasyon ve
revizyon oranlarıyla etkili ve güvenli bir tedavi seçeneğidir.

Keywords

Penil protez, erektil disfonksiyon, penil protez cerrahisi

Clinical Outcomes of Penile Prosthesis Implantation Surgery

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to evaluating the outcomes of in­flatable penile prosthesis implantations and partner sat­isfaction. Methods: Data of 52 patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation in single center between May 2010 and December 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Types of prosthesis, complication and satisfaction rates of patients were recorded by EDITS (Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction) questionnaire was used. Results: The mean age was 49.2±14.7 years for patients. The mean follow-up durations for 34.3±12.5 months. The mean hospital stay was 3.84±1.52 days. Evaluating of the couples satisfaction revealed that 44 (84%) of the patient were very satisfied. There was not any complication and no patient need to underwent revision surgery. Conclusion: Inflatable penile prosthesis implants, with high levels of treatment success, patient and partner sat­isfaction, are effective and safe options for treatment of organic erectile dysfunction with acceptable complication and revision rates.

Keywords

penile prosthesis, penile prosthesis surgery, erectile dysfunction

References

• 1. Evans C. The use of penile prostheses in the treatment of impotence. Br J Urol 1998;81:591-598.
• 2. Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, et al. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Urol 1994;151:54-61.
• 3. Johannes CB, Araujo AB, Feldman HA, et al. Incidence of erectile dysfunction in men 40 to 69 years old: longitudinal results from the Massachusetts male aging study. J Urol 2000;163:460-463.
• 4. Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1999;53:793-799.
• 5. Anafarta K, Safak M, Beduk Y, et al. Clinical experience with inflatable and malleable penile implants in 104 patients. Urol Int 1996;56:100-104.
• 6. Furlow WL. Surgical management of impotence using the inflatable penile prosthesis: experience with 103 patients. Br J Urol 1978;50:114-117.
• 7. Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, Levine LA. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol 2007;177:262-266.
• 8. Jin Z, Zhu YC, Cui WS, et al. [Clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment of severe erectile dysfunction]. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. Health sciences. 2010;42:413-417.
• 9. 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.
• 10. Goldstein I, Newman L, Baum N, et al. Safety and efficacy outcome of mentor alpha-1 inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for impotence treatment. J Urol 1997;157:833- 839.
• 11. Montorsi F, Rigatti P, Carmignani G, et al. AMS three-piece inflatable implants for erectile dysfunction: a long-term multi-institutional study in 200 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 2000;37:50-55.
• 12. Nickas ME, Kessler R, Kabalin JN. Long-term experience with controlled expansion cylinders in the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis and comparison with earlier versions of the Scott inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1994;44:400-403.
• 13. Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, et al. Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700 series inflatable penile prostheses: comparison of CX/CXM and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol 1997;158:1400-1402.
• 14. Parsons CL, Stein PC, Dobke MK, et al. Diagnosis and therapy of subclinically infected prostheses. Surg Gynecol Obste 1993;177:504-506.
• 15. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE. Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. AMS 700CX Study Group. J Urol 2000;164:376-380.
• 16. Shin YS, Ko OS, Zhang LT, et al. An unexpected course after simultaneous urethral repair and reimplantation of penile prosthesis in a patient with a urethral stricture. World J Mens Health 2014;32:189-191.
• 17. Deveci S, Martin D, Parker M, Mulhall JP. Penile length alterations following penile prosthesis surgery. Eur Urol 2007;51:1128-1131.