Urology journal · 2008
Penile prosthesis implantation for treatment of postpriapism erectile dysfunction.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Durazi Mohammed H, Jalal Akbar A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to evaluate the procedure and outcome of penile prosthesis surgery in the treatment of men with postpriapism erectile dysfunction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: During the period between 1997 and 2004, a total of 17 patients with postpriapism erectile dysfunction underwent penile prosthesis implantation at our institution. Prosthesis implantation was done electively 6 to 18 months after priapism, when the patients presented with erectile dysfunction. Of the prosthesis implanted, 11 were malleable, 4 were 2-piece, and 2 were 3-piece prostheses (AMS, Minnetonka, Minnesota, USA).
RESULTS: All the 17 patients were successfully implanted with penile prosthesis. Intra-operatively, corporeal dilation was difficult due to extensive corporeal fibrosis, which led to urethral injury in 2 patients. There were no major postoperative complications. The median hospital stay was 5 days. The follow-up period ranged from 2 to 9 years (median, 6 years). All the patients were satisfied with the prosthesis.
CONCLUSION: Penile prosthesis implantation is the modality of treatment for patients with postpriapism erectile dysfunction at our institution. It has a high patient satisfaction rate. Although procedure-related complications are common due to corporeal fibrosis, they were mostly minor ones and did not affect the outcome of the procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: During the period between 1997 and 2004, a total of 17 patients with postpriapism erectile dysfunction underwent penile prosthesis implantation at our institution. Prosthesis implantation was done electively 6 to 18 months after priapism, when the patients presented with erectile dysfunction. Of the prosthesis implanted, 11 were malleable, 4 were 2-piece, and 2 were 3-piece prostheses (AMS, Minnetonka, Minnesota, USA).
RESULTS: All the 17 patients were successfully implanted with penile prosthesis. Intra-operatively, corporeal dilation was difficult due to extensive corporeal fibrosis, which led to urethral injury in 2 patients. There were no major postoperative complications. The median hospital stay was 5 days. The follow-up period ranged from 2 to 9 years (median, 6 years). All the patients were satisfied with the prosthesis.
CONCLUSION: Penile prosthesis implantation is the modality of treatment for patients with postpriapism erectile dysfunction at our institution. It has a high patient satisfaction rate. Although procedure-related complications are common due to corporeal fibrosis, they were mostly minor ones and did not affect the outcome of the procedure.