Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses

Kılıçarslan, Hakan; COŞKUN, BURHAN; Kaygısız, Onur; GÖKÇEN, KAAN; Kaynak, Yurdaer

Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses

Hakan KILIÇARSLAN, (Uludağ Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Üroloji Anabilim Dalı, Bursa, Türkiye)

Yurdaer KAYNAK, (Sağlık Bakanlığı, Eskişehir Devlet Hastanesi, Üroloji Anabilim Dalı, Eskişehir, Türkiye)

KAAN GÖKÇEN, (Sağlık Bakanlığı, Osmaniye Devlet Hastanesi, Üroloji Kliniği, Osmaniye, Türkiye)

Burhan COŞKUN, (Uludağ Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Üroloji Anabilim Dalı, Bursa, Türkiye)

Onur KAYGISIZ (Uludağ Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Üroloji Anabilim Dalı, Bursa, Türkiye)

Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology

3 0

Yıl: 2014 Cilt: 40 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 207 - 210 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses

Öz:

Amaç: Ereksiyon bozukluğu olan hastalarda, AMS (American Medical Systems, Minneapolis, ABD)600-650 ve AMS Ambicore penil implantların hasta memnuniyetlerinin karşılaştırmak.Gereç ve yöntemler: Ocak 2008-2013 arsında AMS 600-650 (n=23) veya Ambicore penil implant yerleştirilmiş 46 hastanın operasyon sonrası 6. aydaki modifye EDITS (The modifed Erectile DysfunctionInventory of Treatment Satisfaction) sorgulamaları analiz edildi.Bulgular: AMS 600-650 ile implantasyon yapılan hastalardan, protezlerinden çok memnun, ne memnun ne de değil ve memnun olmadıklarını ifade edenlerin oranları sırasıyla %34,78 (n=8), %30,43 (n=7)ve %34,78 (n=8) idi. Bu oranlar AMS Ambicore için sırasıyla, %73,91 (n=17), %13,04 (n=3) ve %13,04(n=3) idi. AMS Ambicore ve 600-650nin toplam hasta memnuniyet oranları istatistiksel olarak farklıidi (p=0,013). AMS 600-650 implantasyonlu hastalarda, protezlerini büyük olasılıkla kullanmaya devam edecekler, kararsız olanlar ve kullanmayacakların oranları sırasıyla %30,43 (n=7), %34,78 (n=8)ve %34,78 (n=8) iken AMS Ambicor implantasyonlu hastalarda bu oranlar sırası ile, %65,21, %21,33 ve%13,04 idi. Bu oranlar AMS Ambicore ve AMS 600-650 implantasyonu yapılmış hasatlarda istatistikselolarak farklı idi (p=0,018).Sonuç: İki parçalı şişirilebilir penil protez malleable penil proteze kıyasla, daha çok hasta memnuniyetioluşturur ve hastalar tarafından kullanılmaya devam edilmesi daha olasıdır.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Üroloji ve Nefroloji

Malleable ve iki parçalı şişirilebilir penil protezlerin hasta memnuniyetleri açısından karşılaştırılması

Öz:

Objective: To compare patient/partner satisfaction with AMS 600-650 and AMS Ambicore penile implants (American Medical Systems, Minneapolis, USA) in patients with erectile dysfunction.Material and methods: The modifed Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS)questionnaires at six months after implantation of 46 patients who underwent AMS 600-650 (n=23) orAmbicore placement (n=23) between 1/1/2008 and 1/1/2013 were analyzed.Results: The percentages of patients with AMS 600-650 who reported to be satisfed, very satisfed andneither satisfed nor dissatisfed with their prostheses were 34.78% (n=8), 30.43% (n=7) and 34.78% (n=8),respectively. For patients with AMS Ambicore, these percentages were 73.91% (n=17), 13.04% (n=3) and13.04% (n=3), respectively. These overall satisfaction rates were signifcantly different between patientswith AMS 600-650 and Ambicore (p=0.013). For patients with AMS 600-650, the percentages of patientswho reported to be very likely, neither likely nor unlikely, or very unlikely to continue using their pros -thesis were 30.43% (n=7), 34.78% (n=8), and 34.78% (n=8) while for patients with AMS Ambicore, thesepercentages were 65.21%, 21.33%, and 13.04%, respectively. These percentages were different betweenpatients with AMS 600-650 and Ambicore (p=0.018).Conclusion: The two-piece infatable penile prosthesis was found to be more successful in overall satis -faction and more likely for continued use when compared to the malleable penile prosthesis.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Üroloji ve Nefroloji

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Montague DK. Penile prosthesis implantation for end-stage erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol 2005;7:51-7.
2. Mulcahy JJ, Austoni E, Brada JH, Ki Choi H, Hellstrom WJG, Krisnamurti S, et al. Implants, mechanical devices and vascular sur- gery for erectile dysfunction. In: Lue TF, Basson R, Rosen R, Giuliano F, Khoury S, Montorsi F, eds. Sexual medicine: Sexual dysfunctions in men and woman. Paris: Health publications; 2004:469-98.
3. Sadeghi-Nejad H. Penile prosthesis surgery: A review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med 2007;4:296-309.
4. Hatzimouratidis K, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Moncada I, Salonia A, et al. Guidelines on Male Sexual Dysfunction: Erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation, 2014:24.
5. Nielsen KT, Bruskewitz RC. Semirigid and malleable rod penile prostheses. Urol Clin North Am 1989;16:13-23.
6. Chiang HS, Wu CC, Wen TC. 10 years experiences with penile prosthesis implantation in Taiwanese patients. J Urol 2000;163:476-80. [CrossRef]
7. Nickas ME, Kessler R, Kabalin JN. Longterm 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;44:400-3. [CrossRef]
8. Trost LW, Baum N, Hellstrom WJ. Managing the difficult penile prosthesis patient. J Sex Med 2013;4:893-906. [CrossRef]
9. Natalli A, Olianas R, Fisch M. Penile implantation in Europe: Successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany. J Sex Med 2008;5:1503-12. [CrossRef]
10. Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP. Outcome of penile prosthesis for treating erectile dysfunction: Experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int 2006;97:129-33. [CrossRef]
11. Chiva Robles V, Lianes Gonzalez L, Pascal Mateo C, Espinales Castro G, Romero Cajigal I, Berenguer Sanchez A. Penile prosthesis. Quailty outcomes and morbidity. Arch Esp Urol 2005;58:925-30.
12. Levine LA, Estreda CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with Ambicore inflatable penile pros- thesis: Results of a 2 centers study. J Urol 2001;166:932-7. [CrossRef]
13. Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Levine LA. Outcomes and satisfac- tion rates for redesigned 2- piece penile prosthesis. J Urol 2007;177:262-6. [CrossRef]
14. 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. AMS700 CX Study Group. J Urol 2000;164:376-80. [CrossRef]
15. Goldstein I, Newman L, Baum N, Brooks M, Chaikin L, Goldberg K, et al. Safety and efficacy outcome of Mentor α-1 inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for impotence treatment. J Urol 1997;157:833-9. [CrossRef]

APA	Kılıçarslan H, Kaynak Y, GÖKÇEN K, COŞKUN B, Kaygısız O (2014). Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses. , 207 - 210.
Chicago	Kılıçarslan Hakan,Kaynak Yurdaer,GÖKÇEN KAAN,COŞKUN BURHAN,Kaygısız Onur Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses. (2014): 207 - 210.
MLA	Kılıçarslan Hakan,Kaynak Yurdaer,GÖKÇEN KAAN,COŞKUN BURHAN,Kaygısız Onur Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses. , 2014, ss.207 - 210.
AMA	Kılıçarslan H,Kaynak Y,GÖKÇEN K,COŞKUN B,Kaygısız O Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses. . 2014; 207 - 210.
Vancouver	Kılıçarslan H,Kaynak Y,GÖKÇEN K,COŞKUN B,Kaygısız O Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses. . 2014; 207 - 210.
IEEE	Kılıçarslan H,Kaynak Y,GÖKÇEN K,COŞKUN B,Kaygısız O "Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses." , ss.207 - 210, 2014.
ISNAD	Kılıçarslan, Hakan vd. "Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses". (2014), 207-210.

APA	Kılıçarslan H, Kaynak Y, GÖKÇEN K, COŞKUN B, Kaygısız O (2014). Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, 40(4), 207 - 210.
Chicago	Kılıçarslan Hakan,Kaynak Yurdaer,GÖKÇEN KAAN,COŞKUN BURHAN,Kaygısız Onur Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology 40, no.4 (2014): 207 - 210.
MLA	Kılıçarslan Hakan,Kaynak Yurdaer,GÖKÇEN KAAN,COŞKUN BURHAN,Kaygısız Onur Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, vol.40, no.4, 2014, ss.207 - 210.
AMA	Kılıçarslan H,Kaynak Y,GÖKÇEN K,COŞKUN B,Kaygısız O Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology. 2014; 40(4): 207 - 210.
Vancouver	Kılıçarslan H,Kaynak Y,GÖKÇEN K,COŞKUN B,Kaygısız O Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology. 2014; 40(4): 207 - 210.
IEEE	Kılıçarslan H,Kaynak Y,GÖKÇEN K,COŞKUN B,Kaygısız O "Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses." Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, 40, ss.207 - 210, 2014.
ISNAD	Kılıçarslan, Hakan vd. "Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-infatable penile prostheses". Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology 40/4 (2014), 207-210.