Retrospective Study
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Clin Urol. Jul 24, 2014; 3(2): 134-138
Published online Jul 24, 2014. doi: 10.5410/wjcu.v3.i2.134
Penile prosthesis: Patient satisfaction, use and preference for malleable vs inflatable
Ramón Rogel Bertó, Jose Daniel López-Acón, Saturnino Luján Marco, Domingo Guzmán Ordaz Jurado, Francisco Delgado Oliva, María Angeles Conca Baenas, Francisco Boronat Tormo
Ramón Rogel Bertó, Jose Daniel López-Acón, Saturnino Luján Marco, Domingo Guzmán Ordaz Jurado, Francisco Delgado Oliva, María Angeles Conca Baenas, Francisco Boronat Tormo, Urology Department, University and Polytechnic Hospital La Fe, 46026 Valencia, Spain
Author contributions: Boronat Tormo F had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis; Rogel Bertó R, López-Acón JD and Luján Marco S concepted and designed the study; López-Acón JD and Conca Baenas MA acquisited the data; Ordaz Jurado DG analyzed the data; Rogel Bertó R drafted the manuscript; Luján Marco S, López-Acón JD, Rogel Bertó R, Delgado Oliva F, Conca Baenas MA and Boronat Tormo F critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content; Ordaz Jurado DG contributed to the statistical analysis; Luján Marco S and Boronat Tormo F supervised the manuscript.
Correspondence to: Ramón Rogel Bertó, MD, Urology Department, University and Polytechnic Hospital La Fe, Bulevar sur S/N, Com. Valenciana, 46026 Valencia, Spain. ramonrogelberto@hotmail.com
Telephone: +34-96-1245513 Fax: +34-96-1246276
Received: March 31, 2014
Revised: May 5, 2014
Accepted: June 27, 2014
Published online: July 24, 2014
Processing time: 110 Days and 20.5 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To evaluate and compare long-term patient satisfaction and use after either malleable penile prosthesis (MPP) or inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation.

METHODS: we present a retrospective unicenter study of 108 patients implanted with either 2 or 3-piece American Medical System™ (AMS™) or Coloplast™ inflatable penile prosthesis (AMS 700CX™, AMS 700CXR™, AMS Ambicor™ or Coloplast TITAN™) or malleable (AMS Spectra™ or Coloplast Genesis™) in our Centre between 1993 and 2011. We collected data from the medical record including follow-up, age and type of prosthesis. We used a four-question telephone survey designed ad hoc by urologist in our Department, with three multiple choice questions and a grading answer. After verbal consent was obtained, proposed questions concerned global satisfaction regarding to the procedure, quality of sexual intercourses graded from 0 to 10, frequency of sexual intercourse and about undergoing the same procedure again. SPSS™ version 20.0 was used for the descriptive analysis of the data.

RESULTS: Sixty seven (64%) patients underwent a MPP and 41 (36%) an IPP. The mean age was 52.6 ± 3.6 years in the MPP group and 57.2 ± 2.8 years in the IPP group (P = 0.02). Total respond rate was 55.5% (60/108). Twenty six out of 33 MPP patients (78.9%) and 19 of the 27 IPP subjects (70.3%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the procedure. The quality of sexual intercourse was rated 7.13 ± 0.39 points in the MPP group and 6.16 ± 0.47 points in the IPP group. Frequency of sexual intercourse was 1 or more times per week in 15 (46.9%) patients with MPP and in 12 (46.1%) of the IPP patients. Twenty-eight (84.9%) patients who received a MPP would undergo the procedure for the same device again as well as 24 (88.9%) of the IPP group. There were no statistical differences between groups regarding the four items in the survey.

CONCLUSION: Patients show high satisfaction rate and no statistical differences exist regarding to global satisfaction, use of the device and quality of sexual intercourse depending on the type of penile prosthesis.

Keywords: Penile prosthesis; Patient satisfaction; Erectile dysfunction; Medical survey

Core tip: Retrospective study of 108 patients implanted with either malleable penile prosthesis or inflatable penile prosthesis designed to investigate results in terms of use of the device and satisfaction. Patient satisfaction after prosthetic surgery is multifactorial and it should be considered when exposing the pros and cons of prosthesis to patient before surgery. We collected data with a four-question telephone survey. After analyzing our results, we concluded that patients show high satisfaction rate and no statistical differences exist regarding to global satisfaction, use of the device and quality of sexual intercourse depending on the type of penile prosthesis.