Scholarlink

Background <p>Few prospective studies in literature with long postoperative follow-up compared between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques.</p> Aim <p>To compare between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques in terms of patient and partner satisfaction and perioperative outcomes.</p> Methods <p>In All, 60 Patients with severe erectile dysfunction were randomized into 2 equal groups; patients undergoing conventional malleable penile prosthesis implantation, and patients undergoing the cavernous tissue-sparing technique. Postoperatively, prosthesis function and patient satisfaction were assessed at 6&#xa0;weeks after surgery and then 3–6 and 12&#xa0;months using EDITS and QoLSPP questionnaires. Patients were asked about residual penile tumescence. Perioperative data were recorded.</p> Results <p>Modified EDITS questionnaire after 3,6, and 12&#xa0;months was 76.9 ± 18, 79 ± 17 and 82.3 ± 16 respectively. As QOLSPP questionnaire, 46 (73.8%) subjects were highly satisfied, 25 patients (83.3%) in cavernous tissue sparing and 21 patients (70.00%) in Conventional group. While 14 (26.2%) were less satisfied, 5 patients (16.7%) Cavernous tissue sparing and 9 patients (30.00%) in Conventional group. In the cavernous tissue-sparing group, 26 of 30 patients (86.6%) reported having a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence versus 2 of 30 patients (6.6%) in the conventional surgery group (P &lt; .001). The age of highly satisfied subjects was significantly lower than those less satisfied (p = 0.025), while the BMI of highly satisfied subjects was significantly lower than those less satisfied (p = 0.001).</p> Conclusion <p>There is a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence in Cavernous tissue sparing group. Many factors affect male satisfaction rates after PPI as age, and BMI.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cavernous tissue preservation technique versus conventional technique during penile prosthesis implantation: a prospective comparative study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月24日

查看全文
  • Mohamed Abdelrahman Alhefnawy,
  • Hazem Abdelsabour Deif,
  • Ahmed Farag wahsh,
  • Mohamed Gamal Ahmed,
  • Ahmed Mohammed El-Taher,
  • Gamal Abdelmalek Morsy,
  • Alaa Rafaat Mahmoud,
  • Helmy Ahmed Eldib

摘要

Background

Few prospective studies in literature with long postoperative follow-up compared between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques.

Aim

To compare between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques in terms of patient and partner satisfaction and perioperative outcomes.

Methods

In All, 60 Patients with severe erectile dysfunction were randomized into 2 equal groups; patients undergoing conventional malleable penile prosthesis implantation, and patients undergoing the cavernous tissue-sparing technique. Postoperatively, prosthesis function and patient satisfaction were assessed at 6 weeks after surgery and then 3–6 and 12 months using EDITS and QoLSPP questionnaires. Patients were asked about residual penile tumescence. Perioperative data were recorded.

Results

Modified EDITS questionnaire after 3,6, and 12 months was 76.9 ± 18, 79 ± 17 and 82.3 ± 16 respectively. As QOLSPP questionnaire, 46 (73.8%) subjects were highly satisfied, 25 patients (83.3%) in cavernous tissue sparing and 21 patients (70.00%) in Conventional group. While 14 (26.2%) were less satisfied, 5 patients (16.7%) Cavernous tissue sparing and 9 patients (30.00%) in Conventional group. In the cavernous tissue-sparing group, 26 of 30 patients (86.6%) reported having a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence versus 2 of 30 patients (6.6%) in the conventional surgery group (P < .001). The age of highly satisfied subjects was significantly lower than those less satisfied (p = 0.025), while the BMI of highly satisfied subjects was significantly lower than those less satisfied (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

There is a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence in Cavernous tissue sparing group. Many factors affect male satisfaction rates after PPI as age, and BMI.