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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |