Efficacy and Safety of Outcomes of the AMS 700CX Inflatable Penile Prosthesis

Carson, C. C.; Mulcahy, John J.; Govier, Fred E.

doi:10.1097/00005392-199904020-00038

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…51 Studies also show that Caucasian patients and those with private insurance were associated with a higher probability to be PP recipients. 52 Across the series analyzed in this review, five studies 25,29,39,42,44 reported race as one of the demographic variables. Of a total of 1902 patients who underwent PP surgery (Figure 1), 79.4% were Whites (n = 1511), 14.5% were African-Americans (n = 276), 3.4% were Hispanics (n = 65), and 2.7% were other races (n = 51).…”

Section: Racementioning

confidence: 99%

“…53 Selvin et al 4 showed that the prevalence of ED in diabetic patients is roughly 50%. Moreover, of the 27 selected articles in this review, 26 [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] described patients with diabetes mellitus who underwent PP placement. The mean incidence of diabetes was 26.3% (range: 12.7%-45.3%).…”

Section: Diabetes Mellitusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Epidemiology regarding penile prosthetic surgery

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HISTORY OF PENILE PROSTHESISThe first documented efforts to create an artificial penile erection came from the 16 th century in France, when Ambroise Pare developed a wooden penis to aid patients with micturition. 12 Throughout the early part of the 20 th century, several attempts to create artificial erections were made, ranging from inserting bones in the 1930s, to acrylic splints extracavernosally in the 1950s, to inserting polyethylene implants intracorporally in the 1960s. 13 However, it was not until the 1970s, when Scott et al. 14 and Small et al. 15 independently published the creation of a semirigid and an inflatable PP, respectively. Since then, penile implants have evolved with the advent of new technologies, especially in the field of implant materials and design. Nowadays, with refinements in surgical technique, penile implantation has improved to become a safe, highly reproducible, and less-invasive procedure. 16 EPIDEMIOLOGY AND HISTORY LEADING TO PENILE PROSTHESISIt is important to recognize the pathologies that ultimately lead to prosthetic surgery. Although PP implantation is not usually considered as a primary therapy for the treatment of ED, its success and satisfaction rates make it an attractive option. Since the introduction of the phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors in the 1990s, these medications became the first line of therapy for this condition; 17 however, roughly one-third of patients will fail to respond satisfactorily to oral or medical therapy. 18 In spite of this, Lee et al. 19 showed that only 3% of patients diagnosed with ED between 2001 and 2010 underwent PP surgery. In cases of severe ED, as in nonnerve-sparing prostatic cancer surgery, severe vasculogenic disease, priapism, and Peyronie's disease, the penile implant can also be recommended as the primary therapy, given that medical therapy is likely to yield poor results.

show abstract

Section: Racementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Diabetes Mellitusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology regarding penile prosthetic surgery

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implants still hold a definitive place in the treatment of ED, and, despite problems with reimbursement and other procedures and activities competing for the urologist's time, there have been modest annual gains in the number of devices placed. Over the years the mechanical reliability of the penile implant has improved, and we are now quoting repair rates in the range of 15% at 5 years and 30% at 10 years [Carson et al 2000]. Perfecting surgical techniques and postoperative management has led to fewer adverse events.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current approach to the treatment of penile implant infections

Mulcahy¹

2010

Therapeutic Advances in Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern penile implants, introduced to the market almost four decades ago, have provided a predictable and reliable treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) despite the development of less-invasive therapies. Infection associated with the placement of these devices does occur, and with prophylactic measures and protocols the incidence has decreased fortunately. In the presence of an infection the implant and all foreign material should be removed. A salvage procedure, during which the wound is thoroughly washed with antiseptic solutions after device removal and placement of a new implant during the same procedure, has a high success rate and is becoming a popular approach. The alternative, device removal with return at a later date for placing a new implant, entails a more difficult corporal dilation, and the resulting erection is noticeably shorter. Patient and partner satisfaction with a penile implant is the highest among all of the treatments for ED.

show abstract

“…While improved technology, materials and surgical techniques have reduced the number of revisions for mechanical failures, device related complications including infection and mechanical failure developed in 20.7-32.0% of cases. [3][4][5][6] Urethral stricture after implantation of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis has not been reported until now. However, urethral stricture occurring as a result of compression of twisted tubing in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (Mentor Corporation) implants induces a complicated situation in which multiple staged operations are required.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention of urethral stricture in insertion of an inflatable penile prosthesis

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to find the mechanism that causes urethral stricture with a view to preventing its occurrence after implantation of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Methods: When implanting a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis, we draw two longitudinal lines parallel to the long axis of the proximal cylinder and the tubing leading from each cylinder into the cavernosal space, to prevent 360 degree rotation of the cylinder. Results: From September 1993 to February 2007, a total 86 three-piece penile prosthesis implantations were carried out in 70 patients. Urethral stricture occurred in 5.8% (5/86) of the prosthesis operations. Fifteen three-piece penile prosthesis reinsertions were carried out in 17.4% (15/86) of the prosthesis recipients. Conclusions: A successful outcome was achieved in the patients who received penile implantation with the three-piece penile prosthesis that were marked with longitudinal lines. The rotation of the cylinder may cause compression on the urethra from the tubing leading from the cylinder or pump crossing over the urethra and resulting in urethral stricture. The drawing of longitudinal lines at the proximal cylinder and tubing leading from the cylinder could prevent the urethral stricture induced by tubes that are twisted by rotation of the cylinder.

show abstract

Efficacy and Safety of Outcomes of the AMS 700CX Inflatable Penile Prosthesis

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Epidemiology regarding penile prosthetic surgery

Epidemiology regarding penile prosthetic surgery

Current approach to the treatment of penile implant infections

Prevention of urethral stricture in insertion of an inflatable penile prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About