Cargando…

Does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant?

BACKGROUND: Overall prosthesis survival is important in penile implant, which remains the final viable solution to many patients with refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). This paper is to retrospectively study the role of the anatomy of tunica albuginea (TA). METHODS: From March 1987 to March 1991...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hsu, Geng-Long, Chen, Heng-Shuen, Huang, Sheng-Jean
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4708595/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26816839
http://dx.doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2014.03.04
_version_ 1782409503151489024
author Hsu, Geng-Long
Chen, Heng-Shuen
Huang, Sheng-Jean
author_facet Hsu, Geng-Long
Chen, Heng-Shuen
Huang, Sheng-Jean
author_sort Hsu, Geng-Long
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Overall prosthesis survival is important in penile implant, which remains the final viable solution to many patients with refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). This paper is to retrospectively study the role of the anatomy of tunica albuginea (TA). METHODS: From March 1987 to March 1991 while the TA was regarded as a circumferential single layer, 21 organically ED men, aged from 27 to 77, received penile prosthesis implantation and were allocated to conventional group. From August 1992 to March 2013 while the tip of Hegar’s dilator was categorically directed medial-dorsally during corporal dilatation derived from newfound TA as a bi-layered structure with a 360° complete inner circular layer and a 300° incomplete outer longitudinal coat, 196 ED males, aged from 35 to 83, underwent penile implant and were categorized to advanced group. The model of prosthesis was recorded. Prosthesis loss rate and survival time were analyzed and the follow up period ranged from 22.4-26.4 (average 24.3) years and 0.4-20.6 (average 15.8) years to the conventional and advanced group respectively. RESULTS: To the conventional and advanced group, the number of inflatable and rigid type prosthesis used were 2, 19 and 15, 181 respectively, whereas the prosthesis loss was encountered in 50.0% (1/2), 15.8% (3/19) and 0.0% (0/15), 0.6% (1/181) respectively. And the prosthesis survival time were 5.1-6.3 (5.7) years, 1.3-26.4 (15.2) years and 6.1-16.2 (11.2) years, 0.4-20.6 (15.3) years to the conventional and advanced group respectively. Statistical significance was noted on prosthesis loss in groups (P=0.01) while the Mentor Acuform stood out in prosthesis survival. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomy-based managing maneuver appears to deliver better surgery success in penile implant. Tunica anatomy is significant in performing implant surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4708595
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47085952016-01-26 Does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant? Hsu, Geng-Long Chen, Heng-Shuen Huang, Sheng-Jean Transl Androl Urol Original Article BACKGROUND: Overall prosthesis survival is important in penile implant, which remains the final viable solution to many patients with refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). This paper is to retrospectively study the role of the anatomy of tunica albuginea (TA). METHODS: From March 1987 to March 1991 while the TA was regarded as a circumferential single layer, 21 organically ED men, aged from 27 to 77, received penile prosthesis implantation and were allocated to conventional group. From August 1992 to March 2013 while the tip of Hegar’s dilator was categorically directed medial-dorsally during corporal dilatation derived from newfound TA as a bi-layered structure with a 360° complete inner circular layer and a 300° incomplete outer longitudinal coat, 196 ED males, aged from 35 to 83, underwent penile implant and were categorized to advanced group. The model of prosthesis was recorded. Prosthesis loss rate and survival time were analyzed and the follow up period ranged from 22.4-26.4 (average 24.3) years and 0.4-20.6 (average 15.8) years to the conventional and advanced group respectively. RESULTS: To the conventional and advanced group, the number of inflatable and rigid type prosthesis used were 2, 19 and 15, 181 respectively, whereas the prosthesis loss was encountered in 50.0% (1/2), 15.8% (3/19) and 0.0% (0/15), 0.6% (1/181) respectively. And the prosthesis survival time were 5.1-6.3 (5.7) years, 1.3-26.4 (15.2) years and 6.1-16.2 (11.2) years, 0.4-20.6 (15.3) years to the conventional and advanced group respectively. Statistical significance was noted on prosthesis loss in groups (P=0.01) while the Mentor Acuform stood out in prosthesis survival. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomy-based managing maneuver appears to deliver better surgery success in penile implant. Tunica anatomy is significant in performing implant surgery. AME Publishing Company 2015-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4708595/ /pubmed/26816839 http://dx.doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2014.03.04 Text en 2015 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
spellingShingle Original Article
Hsu, Geng-Long
Chen, Heng-Shuen
Huang, Sheng-Jean
Does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant?
title Does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant?
title_full Does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant?
title_fullStr Does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant?
title_full_unstemmed Does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant?
title_short Does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant?
title_sort does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4708595/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26816839
http://dx.doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2014.03.04
work_keys_str_mv AT hsugenglong doestunicaanatomymatterinpenileimplant
AT chenhengshuen doestunicaanatomymatterinpenileimplant
AT huangshengjean doestunicaanatomymatterinpenileimplant