Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Comparative analysis of penile implants in patients with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction versus postradical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 32, pages 606–610 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Penile prosthesis is the treatment of choice for erectile dysfunction (ED) refractory to medical treatment; vasculogenic ED and ED postradical prostatectomy (PRP) are the main aetiologies. Few studies have compared surgical outcomes of penile prosthesis placement for vasculogenic versus PRP severe erectile dysfunction. This study includes 117 cases corresponding to virgin implants for ED of either vasculogenic aetiology or PRP (58 for PRP and 59 for vasculogenic cases). We analysed data corresponding to: age, comorbidity, type of prosthesis, presence of fibrosis that hinders dilation, need for modelling, size of implanted cylinders and complications (intra and postoperative). In the results the rate of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia and ischemic heart disease was higher in vasculogenic ED. All of the prostheses were hydraulic; 24.1% of two components and 75.9% of three in the PRP group; 39% components of two and 61% of three in the vasculogenic group. With regard to the presence of cavernous fibrosis and need for modelling, no significant differences were found. However, significant differences were observed in the size of the implanted cylinders; PRP of 18.30 ± 2.11 cm versus 19.21 ± 1.71 cm in vasculogenic ED (p = 0.01643). There were no significant differences between the groups in infection rates, mechanical failure or extrusion. In conclusion the implantation of penile prosthesis in ED after PRP is associated with a shorter cylinder length compared with vasculogenic origin. Although there was a certain non-significant tendency to the need for modelling manoeuvres in PRP, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes including infection or mechanical failure.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Das S. Urology in ancient India. Indian J Urol. 2007;23:2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Small MP, Carrion HM, Gordon JA. Small-Carrion penile prosthesis. Urology. 1975;5:479–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2:80–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Atienza Merino G. La prótesis de pene en el tratamiento de la disfunción eréctil. Actas Urol Esp. 2006;30:159–69.

  5. Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, Krane RJ, McKinlay JB. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Urol. 1994;151:54–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, Sandler HM, Northouse L, Hembroff L, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1250–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berookhim BM, Nelson CJ, Kunzel B, Mulhall JP, Narus JB. Prospective analysis of penile length changes after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2014;113:E131–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kadono Y, Machioka K, Nakashima K, Iijima M, Shigehara K, Nohara T, et al. Changes in penile length after radical prostatectomy: investigation of the underlying anatomical mechanism. BJU Int 2017;120:293–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fraiman MC, Lepor H, McCullough AR. Changes in penile morphometrics in men with erectile dysfunction after nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Mol Urol. 1999;3:109–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mulhall JP. Penile length changes after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2005;96:472–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ciancio SJ, Kim ED. Penile fibrotic changes after radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2000;85:101–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Menard J, Tremeaux J-C, Faix A, Pierrevelcin J, Staerman F. Erectile function and sexual satisfaction before and after penile prosthesis implantation in radical prostatectomy patients: a comparison with patients with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2011;8:3479–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson SK, Delk JR. A new treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1994;152:1121–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gontero P, Galzerano M, Bartoletti R, Magnani C, Tizzani A, Frea B, et al. New insights into the pathogenesis of penile shortening after radical prostatectomy and the role of postoperative sexual function. J Urol. 2007;178:602–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Briganti A, Fabbri F, Salonia A, Gallina A, Chun FK-H, Dehò F, et al. Preserved postoperative penile size correlates well with maintained erectile function after bilateral nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52:702–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Akin-Olugbade O, Parker M, Guhring P, Mulhall J. Determinants of patient satisfaction following penile prosthesis surgery. J Sex Med. 2006;3:743–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Deveci S, Martin D, Parker M, Mulhall JP. Penile length alterations following penile prosthesis surgery. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1128–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain

    R. Cocera, J. Torremade, J. F. Suarez, J. Fernandez-Concha & F. Vigues

Authors
  1. R. Cocera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Torremade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. F. Suarez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Fernandez-Concha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. Vigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Torremade.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cocera, R., Torremade, J., Suarez, J.F. et al. Comparative analysis of penile implants in patients with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction versus postradical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 32, 606–610 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0198-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0198-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links