Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2026
Restoring sexual health and relationship quality through penile prosthesis implantation.
СтатьяКлинический случайНазвание 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.
Pozo Carmen, Kollitsch Lisa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Erectile dysfunction (ED) following radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common and challenging complication that often does not respond to first- or second-line therapies. Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation offers a definitive solution, particularly in refractory cases.
CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a young patient with ED following RP for prostate cancer. After unsuccessful medical treatments, the patient underwent implantation of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), resulting in high patient satisfaction, restoration of sexual function, and improved psychosocial well-being.
DISCUSSION: The choice of prosthesis type should be individualized, considering patient factors such as manual dexterity, comorbidities, and anatomy. Both IPP and semirigidPP devices provide excellent outcomes but require careful counseling regarding expectations, device operation, and potential complications. Advances in surgical techniques have significantly reduced infection and mechanical failure rates. Despite satisfactory outcomes, penile prostheses remain underutilized due to barriers to access and delayed referral.
CONCLUSION: Penile prosthesis implantation should be offered to patients with ED refractory to first- or second-line treatments. Earlier referral, comprehensive patient education, and integration into survivorship care are essential, especially for younger post-cancer patients.
CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a young patient with ED following RP for prostate cancer. After unsuccessful medical treatments, the patient underwent implantation of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), resulting in high patient satisfaction, restoration of sexual function, and improved psychosocial well-being.
DISCUSSION: The choice of prosthesis type should be individualized, considering patient factors such as manual dexterity, comorbidities, and anatomy. Both IPP and semirigidPP devices provide excellent outcomes but require careful counseling regarding expectations, device operation, and potential complications. Advances in surgical techniques have significantly reduced infection and mechanical failure rates. Despite satisfactory outcomes, penile prostheses remain underutilized due to barriers to access and delayed referral.
CONCLUSION: Penile prosthesis implantation should be offered to patients with ED refractory to first- or second-line treatments. Earlier referral, comprehensive patient education, and integration into survivorship care are essential, especially for younger post-cancer patients.