Show simple item record

A Survey of Patients with Inflatable Penile Prostheses: Assessment of Timing and Frequency of Intercourse and Analysis of Implant Durability

dc.contributor.authorHenry, Gerard D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBrinkman, Mary Joen_US
dc.contributor.authorMead, Susan Fieldsen_US
dc.contributor.authorDelk II, John R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCleves, Mario A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorJennermann, Carolineen_US
dc.contributor.authorWilson, Steven K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKramer, Andrew C.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-07-12T17:23:49Z
dc.date.available2013-08-01T14:04:40Zen_US
dc.date.issued2012-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationHenry, Gerard D.; Brinkman, Mary Jo; Mead, Susan Fields; Delk II, John R.; Cleves, Mario A.; Jennermann, Caroline; Wilson, Steven K.; Kramer, Andrew C. (2012). "A Survey of Patients with Inflatable Penile Prostheses: Assessment of Timing and Frequency of Intercourse and Analysis of Implant Durability." The Journal of Sexual Medicine 9(6). <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/92055>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1743-6095en_US
dc.identifier.issn1743-6109en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/92055
dc.description.abstractIntroduction.  This study was conducted to determine how long after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery patients attempt sexual intercourse and the frequency of subsequent relations. We also examined survival‐related factors for the AMS 700 CX, Mentor Alpha 1, and Mentor Alpha Narrow Base. Aims.  The aim was to survey men who received IPPs and collect information about their return to sexual function and frequency of use, and to assess the resilience of their devices. Methods.  Phase I involved retrospective chart review of 1,298 virgin IPP surgeries performed by one surgical team from January 1992 to December 1998. Phase II included 330 subjects selected by stratified, systematic, random sampling from phase I patients. Data were collected by computer‐assisted telephone interview, using a 27‐question survey. All patients had been instructed to wait 4 weeks before using the implant and were taught how to inflate/deflate their prostheses at the 4‐week postsurgical visits. Main Outcome Measures.  The survey examines the length of time after surgery for men to resume sexual function. In the same study, information was garnered about mechanical durability of the device. Results.  Among phase I subjects, the 5‐year survival rate was 83% (N = 1,069) for IPP revision for any reason. Of the 330 phase II subjects, 248 (75%) were successfully contacted; 199 (80%) responded to the full survey and 49 (20%) responded to selected parts of the survey. Sexual intercourse was resumed postoperatively at 1–4 weeks for 41% (78/190), at 5–6 weeks for 31% (59/190), at 7–8 weeks for 16% (30/190), and at >8 weeks for 12% (23/190) of the patients. More than 60% of patients reported using their IPP at least once weekly. Conclusion.  The three‐piece IPP has excellent 5‐year survival rates. Most patients return to sexual activity relatively quickly, with high frequency of usage of their prostheses. Henry GD, Brinkman MJ, Mead SF, Delk JR II, Cleves MA, Jennermann C, Wilson SK, and Kramer AC. A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses: Assessment of timing and frequency of intercourse and analysis of implant durability. J Sex Med 2012;9:1715–1721.en_US
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Incen_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherIPP Survivalen_US
dc.subject.otherImpotenceen_US
dc.subject.otherPenile Prosthesisen_US
dc.subject.otherOutcomesen_US
dc.titleA Survey of Patients with Inflatable Penile Prostheses: Assessment of Timing and Frequency of Intercourse and Analysis of Implant Durabilityen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelUrologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherRegional Urology, Shreveport, LA, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Health Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherInstitute for Urologic Excellence, Indigo, CA, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USAen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/92055/1/j.1743-6109.2012.02729.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02729.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceThe Journal of Sexual Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKramer AC, Schweber A. Patient expectations prior to coloplast titan penile prosthesis implant predicts postoperative satisfaction. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 2261 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, Lucarelli G, Palazzo S, Battaglia M, Selvaggi FP, Ditonno P. Patient and partner satisfaction after AMS inflatable penile prosthesis implant. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 304 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHassan A, El‐Hadidy M, El‐Deeck BS, Mostafa T. Couple satisfaction to different therapeutic modalities for organic erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2008; 5: 2381 – 91.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAkin‐Olugbade O, Parker M, Guhring P, Mulhall J. Determinants of patient satisfaction following penile prosthesis surgery. J Sex Med 2006; 3: 743 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLux M, Reyes‐Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, Levine LA. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2‐piece penile prosthesis. J Urol 2007; 177: 262 – 6.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrinkman MJ, Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd, Denny GA, Young M, Cleves MA. A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses for satisfaction. J Urol 2005; 174: 253 – 7.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFisher WA, Rosen RC, Eardley I, Sand M, Goldstein I. Sexual experience of female partners of men with erectile dysfunction: The female experience of men's attitudes to life events and sexuality (FEMALES) study. J Sex Med 2005; 2: 675 – 84. Erratum in: J Sex Med 3: 189, 2006.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCarson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE. Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700 CX inflatable penile prosthesis: Results of a long‐term, multicenter study. J Urol 2000; 164: 376 – 80.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHellstrom WJ, Montague DK, Moncada I, Carson C, Minhas S, Faria G, Krishnamurti S. Implants, mechanical devices, and vascular surgery for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 501 – 23.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldstein I, Newman L, Baum N, Brooks M, Chaikin L, Goldberg K, McBride A, Krane RJ. Safety and efficacy outcome of mentor alpha‐1 inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for impotence treatment. J Urol 1997; 157: 833 – 9.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFerguson KH, Cespedes RD. Prospective long‐term results and quality‐of‐life assessment after Dura‐II penile prosthesis placement. Urology 2003; 61: 437 – 41.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceParsons CL. Subclinical infection of penile prostheses. Infect Urol 1995; 8: 148 – 50.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJarow JP. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol 1996; 156: 402 – 4.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGittens P, Moskovic DJ, Avila D Jr, Chandrashekar A, Khera M, Lipshultz LI. Favorable female sexual function is associated with patient satisfaction after inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 1996 – 2001.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilson SK, Delk JR. Inflatable penile implant infection: Predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol 1995; 153: 659 – 61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilson SK, Wahman GE, Lange JL. Eleven years of experience with the inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol 1988; 139: 951 – 2.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKelly GF. Sexuality today: The human perspective. 4th edition. Guilford, CT: The Dushkin Publishing Group; 1994.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCleves MA, Gould WW, Gutierrez RG. An introduction to survival analysis using STATA. College Station, Texas: Stata Press; 2002: 51 – 69, 93–102, 113–115.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR. Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced Mentor Alpha 1 penile prosthesis. J Urol 1999; 162: 715 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSalama N. Satisfaction with the malleable penile prosthesis among couples from the Middle East—is it different from that reported elsewhere? Int J Impot Res 2004; 16: 175 – 80.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKrauss DJ, Lantinga LJ, Carey MP, Meisler AW, Kelly CM. Use of the malleable penile prosthesis in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: A prospective study of postoperative adjustment. J Urol 1989; 142: 988 – 91.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrody S, Costa RM. Satisfaction (sexual, life, relationship, and mental health) is associated directly with penile‐vaginal intercourse, but inversely with other sexual behavior frequencies. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 1947 – 54.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.