World journal of urology · 2025
Cavernous tissue preservation technique versus conventional technique during penile prosthesis implantation: a prospective comparative study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alhefnawy Mohamed Abdelrahman, Deif Hazem Abdelsabour, Wahsh Ahmed Farag, Ahmed Mohamed Gamal, El-Taher Ahmed Mohammed, Morsy Gamal Abdelmalek, Mahmoud Alaa Rafaat, Eldib Helmy Ahmed
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies in literature with long postoperative follow-up compared between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques.
AIM: To compare between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques in terms of patient and partner satisfaction and perioperative outcomes.
METHODS: In All, 60 Patients with severe erectile dysfunction were randomized into 2 equal groups; patients undergoing conventional malleable penile prosthesis implantation, and patients undergoing the cavernous tissue-sparing technique. Postoperatively, prosthesis function and patient satisfaction were assessed at 6 weeks after surgery and then 3-6 and 12 months using EDITS and QoLSPP questionnaires. Patients were asked about residual penile tumescence. Perioperative data were recorded.
RESULTS: Modified EDITS questionnaire after 3,6, and 12 months was 76.9 ± 18, 79 ± 17 and 82.3 ± 16 respectively. As QOLSPP questionnaire, 46 (73.8%) subjects were highly satisfied, 25 patients (83.3%) in cavernous tissue sparing and 21 patients (70.00%) in Conventional group. While 14 (26.2%) were less satisfied, 5 patients (16.7%) Cavernous tissue sparing and 9 patients (30.00%) in Conventional group. In the cavernous tissue-sparing group, 26 of 30 patients (86.6%) reported having a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence versus 2 of 30 patients (6.6%) in the conventional surgery group (P < .001). The age of highly satisfied subjects was significantly lower than those less satisfied (p = 0.025), while the BMI of highly satisfied subjects was significantly lower than those less satisfied (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: There is a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence in Cavernous tissue sparing group. Many factors affect male satisfaction rates after PPI as age, and BMI.
AIM: To compare between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques in terms of patient and partner satisfaction and perioperative outcomes.
METHODS: In All, 60 Patients with severe erectile dysfunction were randomized into 2 equal groups; patients undergoing conventional malleable penile prosthesis implantation, and patients undergoing the cavernous tissue-sparing technique. Postoperatively, prosthesis function and patient satisfaction were assessed at 6 weeks after surgery and then 3-6 and 12 months using EDITS and QoLSPP questionnaires. Patients were asked about residual penile tumescence. Perioperative data were recorded.
RESULTS: Modified EDITS questionnaire after 3,6, and 12 months was 76.9 ± 18, 79 ± 17 and 82.3 ± 16 respectively. As QOLSPP questionnaire, 46 (73.8%) subjects were highly satisfied, 25 patients (83.3%) in cavernous tissue sparing and 21 patients (70.00%) in Conventional group. While 14 (26.2%) were less satisfied, 5 patients (16.7%) Cavernous tissue sparing and 9 patients (30.00%) in Conventional group. In the cavernous tissue-sparing group, 26 of 30 patients (86.6%) reported having a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence versus 2 of 30 patients (6.6%) in the conventional surgery group (P < .001). The age of highly satisfied subjects was significantly lower than those less satisfied (p = 0.025), while the BMI of highly satisfied subjects was significantly lower than those less satisfied (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: There is a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence in Cavernous tissue sparing group. Many factors affect male satisfaction rates after PPI as age, and BMI.