Urologia internationalis · 2005
Surgical outcome of radical retropubic prostatectomy is not adversely affected by preexisting three-piece inflatable penile implant.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Mireku-Boateng A O, Oben Felix
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We report on our surgical findings and outcome of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in patients who have had three-piece inflatable penile implants.
METHODS: We looked at the retrospective data of 6 patients who have undergone RRP for cancer of the prostate after a prior insertion of a three-piece inflatable penile implant. We looked at the data involving operating time, blood loss, infection of the penile implant, damage to the penile implant, surgical margins of the prostate, damage to other pelvic structures, length of hospital stay, time interval between penile implant and RRP, technique of placing of the reservoir during the penile implant surgery.
RESULTS: The RRP procedures all went well, with no injury to the preexisting penile implants. There was also no compromise in the surgery for the cancer treatment, or injury to other pelvic organs.
CONCLUSIONS: With increasing treatment of men with erectile dysfunction and also with increasing early diagnosis of cancer of the prostate, we are going to be seeing increasing numbers of patients who have had inflatable penile implants who subsequently need RRP for treatment of cancer of the prostate. We feel the surgery can be accomplished without any complication to the implant or compromise to the cancer surgery or injury to other pelvic organs.
METHODS: We looked at the retrospective data of 6 patients who have undergone RRP for cancer of the prostate after a prior insertion of a three-piece inflatable penile implant. We looked at the data involving operating time, blood loss, infection of the penile implant, damage to the penile implant, surgical margins of the prostate, damage to other pelvic structures, length of hospital stay, time interval between penile implant and RRP, technique of placing of the reservoir during the penile implant surgery.
RESULTS: The RRP procedures all went well, with no injury to the preexisting penile implants. There was also no compromise in the surgery for the cancer treatment, or injury to other pelvic organs.
CONCLUSIONS: With increasing treatment of men with erectile dysfunction and also with increasing early diagnosis of cancer of the prostate, we are going to be seeing increasing numbers of patients who have had inflatable penile implants who subsequently need RRP for treatment of cancer of the prostate. We feel the surgery can be accomplished without any complication to the implant or compromise to the cancer surgery or injury to other pelvic organs.