» Articles » PMID: 35875283

Evaluation of Satisfaction and Outcomes of Patients Who Underwent Two-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation

Overview
Journal Cureus
Date 2022 Jul 25
PMID 35875283
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction The aim of this study was to evaluate patient and partner satisfaction, device reliability, and complications in patients who underwent two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation. Patients and methods The data of 22 patients who underwent two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation in our department between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed, and a detailed review of all clinical reports was performed. Phone or face-to-face interviews were undertaken to assess the satisfaction rates of the patients and their partners using the modified Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire. Results The mean patient age and partner age were 57.95 ± 6.16 and 58.12 ± 6.66 years, respectively. The mean erectile dysfunction (ED) period was 5.33 ± 2.16 years, and the etiologies of erectile dysfunction were radical pelvic surgery (41%), diabetes mellitus (37%), and vascular disorders (22%). The mean operative time and postoperative hospital stay were 102 ± 29 minutes and 1.8 ± 0.66 days, respectively. Over a mean follow-up period of 29.04 ± 14.48 months, two (9%) cases underwent revision surgery due to mechanical device failure in one and infection in the other. The overall patient and partner satisfaction rates were 73% and 59%, respectively. Conclusions The two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis is an effective, reliable, and user-friendly prosthesis with acceptable complication and revision rates and provides a high level of patient and partner satisfaction in selected and fully informed patients.

Citing Articles

Interim Results of Rigicon Penile Prosthesis Implantation in a Single Center: The Largest Series in Türkiye.

Karaman M, Guzel R, Kirkik D, Koca O Urol Res Pract. 2025; 50(4):234-239.

PMID: 39873434 PMC: 11883673. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2025.24122.


Comparison of satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation in patients with prostate cancer radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy.

Mehr J, Blum K, Green T, Howell S, Palasi S, Sullivan A Transl Androl Urol. 2023; 12(5):690-699.

PMID: 37305636 PMC: 10251085. DOI: 10.21037/tau-22-600.


Comment on: Technological advances in penile implants: past, present, future.

Garcia S, Pena Rodriguez S, Alarcon J Int J Impot Res. 2023; 36(5):545-546.

PMID: 37291230 DOI: 10.1038/s41443-023-00720-6.


Epididymo-Orchitis and Pelvic Abscess in a Patient With Inflatable Penile Prosthesis.

Ansari M, Mangal R, Stead T, Carman M, Ganti L Cureus. 2022; 14(9):e29715.

PMID: 36320940 PMC: 9616694. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.29715.

References
1.
Bozkurt I, Arslan B, Yonguc T, Kozacioglu Z, Degirmenci T, Gunlusoy B . Patient and partner outcome of inflatable and semi-rigid penile prosthesis in a single institution. Int Braz J Urol. 2015; 41(3):535-41. PMC: 4752147. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0241. View

2.
Deveci S, Martin D, Parker M, Mulhall J . Penile length alterations following penile prosthesis surgery. Eur Urol. 2006; 51(4):1128-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.026. View

3.
Antonini G, Busetto G, De Berardinis E, Giovannone R, Vicini P, Del Giudice F . Minimally invasive infrapubic inflatable penile prosthesis implant for erectile dysfunction: evaluation of efficacy, satisfaction profile and complications. Int J Impot Res. 2015; 28(1):4-8. PMC: 4709472. DOI: 10.1038/ijir.2015.33. View

4.
Althof S, Corty E, Levine S, Levine F, Burnett A, McVary K . EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1999; 53(4):793-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00582-2. View

5.
Cuellar D, Sklar G . Penile prosthesis in the organ transplant recipient. Urology. 2001; 57(1):138-41. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00876-1. View