Surgical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction With the Low-Cost, Semi-Rigid Shah Penile Prosthesis: A boon to the Developing Countries

Sexual Medicine - Tập 9 - Trang 100399 - 2021
Pramod Krishnappa1, Amit Tripathi2, Rupin Shah2
1Division of Andrology, Department of Urology, NU Hospitals, Bangalore, India
2Division of Andrology, Department of Urology, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India

Tóm tắt

Abstract Introduction In developing countries most patients with refractory erectile dysfunction cannot afford a penile prosthesis (PP) due to its cost and non-coverage by insurance companies. Aim To assess the patient satisfaction outcomes with a novel, low-cost, semi-rigid PP. Methods 52 patients who had received the Shah semi-rigid PP between January 2013 and December 2018 were included in this bidirectional study. Patient demographics including age, etiology, body mass index, length of PP received and post-operative complications were recorded. Patient satisfaction with the PP was evaluated using the modified Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) Questionnaire. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measures were overall satisfaction, total EDITS and mean EDITS score. The secondary outcome measures were residual penile tumescence, ease of concealment and post-operative complications. Results The mean age of the patients was 38.79 years (25–68). Overall satisfaction (EDITS Q-1) of 4 (0–4) was reported by 84.62% (44/52) of patients. There was no significant difference (P > .7) in the total EDITS and overall satisfaction based on various etiological factors. The mean EDITS scores (0–100) were 95.67 ± 10.76, 95.53 ± 8.46 and 91.72 ± 22.42 in 52 patients with BMI <25, 25–29.9 and >30 kg/m2 respectively. During sexual arousal after PP implantation, 26 (50%), 17 (32.7%) and 9 (17.3%) patients noted “good”, “some” or “no” residual penile tumescence respectively. 47 (90.4%), 4 (7.7%) and 1 (1.9%) patients reported “good”, “fair” and “poor” concealment respectively. In the prospective group, major and minor post-operative complications were seen in 10.7% (3/28) and 21.4% (6/28) of patients respectively. Conclusion The semi-rigid Shah PP is a safe, effective and affordable option to treat patients with refractory ED. The ability to remove 1 or both sleeves in the Shah PP helps achieve a good fit with a small inventory. Krishnappa P, Tripathi A, Shah R. Surgical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction With the Low-Cost, Semi-Rigid Shah Penile Prosthesis: A boon to the Developing Countries. Sex Med 2021;9:100399.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Bajic, 2020, Etiology of erectile dysfunction and duration of symptoms in patients undergoing penile prosthesis: A systematic review, Sex Med Rev, 8, 333, 10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.05.003 Low, 2004, Management of erectile dysfunction: Barriers faced by general practitioners, Asian J Androl, 6, 99 Shah, 2021, Twenty-five years of the low-cost, noninflatable, Shah Indian penile prosthesis: The history of its evolution, Indian J Urol, 37, 113, 10.4103/iju.IJU_60_21 Verze, 2020, Two-piece inflatable and semi-rigid penile implants: An effective alternative?, Int J Impot Res, 32, 24, 10.1038/s41443-019-0213-0 Chung, 2017, Penile prosthesis implant: scientific advances and technological innovations over the last four decades, Transl Androl Urol, 6, 37, 10.21037/tau.2016.12.06 Lightner, 2020, Best practice statement on urologic procedures and antimicrobial prophylaxis, J Urol, 203, 351, 10.1097/JU.0000000000000509 Tatem, 2017, Post-operative antibiotics following placement of a penile prosthesis, Transl Androl Urol, 6, S774, 10.21037/tau.2017.11.14 Althof, 1999, EDITS: Development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction, Urology, 53, 793, 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00582-2 Levine, 2001, Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study, J Urol, 166, 932, 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65867-3 Khera, 2020, Is there still a place for malleable penile implants in the United States? Wilson's Workshop #18, Int J Impot Res, 10.1038/s41443-020-00376-6 Lao, 2017, Salvage penile prosthetic surgery utilizing temporary malleable implants, Transl Androl Urol, 6, S806, 10.21037/tau.2017.05.12 Chierigo, 2019, Long-Term follow-up after penile prosthesis implantation-survival and quality of life outcomes, J Sex Med, 16, 1827, 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.08.001 Frydman, 2021, Long-term outcomes after penile prosthesis placement for the Management of Erectile Dysfunction: A single-centre experience, Basic Clin Androl, 31, 4, 10.1186/s12610-021-00123-x Natali, 2008, Penile implantation in Europe: Successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany, J Sex Med, 5, 1503, 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00819.x Ali, 2019, Post malleable penile prosthesis satisfaction in elderly patients: Serial assessments, Andrologia, 51, e13399, 10.1111/and.13399 Akin-Olugbade, 2006, Determinants of patient satisfaction following penile prosthesis surgery, J Sex Med., 3, 743, 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00278.x Habous, 2018, Malleable penile implant is an effective therapeutic option in men with Peyronie's disease and erectile dysfunction, Sex Med, 6, 24, 10.1016/j.esxm.2017.10.004 Çayan, 2019, Comparison of long-term results and couples' satisfaction with penile implant types and brands: lessons learned from 883 patients with erectile dysfunction who underwent penile prosthesis implantation, J Sex Med, 16, 1092, 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.04.013 Pinheiro, 2016, Multiple site fracture of both rods in a malleable penile implant, Case Rep Urol, 2016, 10.1155/2016/9564904 Subrini, 1982, Subrini penile implants: surgical, sexual and psychological results, Eur Urol, 8, 222, 10.1159/000473522 Salama, 2007, Unusual trivial trauma may end with extrusion of a well-functioning penile prosthesis: A case report, J Med Case Rep, 1, 34, 10.1186/1752-1947-1-34
Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Sexual Medicine

Tập 9

100399

Thông tin tác giả