Actas urologicas espanolas · 2022
Systematic review of the implantation of penile prosthesis in major ambulatory surgery.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Torremadé J, Presa M, Gorría Ó, de Burgos R, Oyagüez I, Lledó E
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation is an effective option for erectile dysfunction. Although initially PP surgery was carried out in an inpatient setting, there is a growing trend to implant PP as a major ambulatory surgery (MAS). This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify available evidence of the implantation of PP under MAS setting and go carry out a comparison between MAS and inpatient procedures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and MEDES electronic databases and non-indexed supplements for scientific congresses were searched to identify articles related to the surgical implantation of PP in MAS up to February 2021. Key search terms included penile prosthesis, erectile dysfunction, ambulatory surgery, ambulatory care, and surgery.
RESULTS: Among 171 publications retrieved (51 PubMed, 73 EMBASE, 3 Cochrane, 2 using MEDES and 42 manual searching), 5 studies were finally selected. There were no significant differences between MAS or inpatient setting in terms of the type of device, surgical approach, or location of reservoir. Complication rates observed in both groups were similar. Implantation of PP in MAS was less expensive than inpatient surgery and was associated with acceptable patient satisfaction rates and adequate pain control.
CONCLUSIONS: Studies demonstrated that outpatient PP surgery can achieve similar outcomes in terms of safety and satisfaction to implantation of PP in the inpatient setting, while it could reduce costs and improve the efficiency. This research could support decision makers to extend PP surgery into the ambulatory setting.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and MEDES electronic databases and non-indexed supplements for scientific congresses were searched to identify articles related to the surgical implantation of PP in MAS up to February 2021. Key search terms included penile prosthesis, erectile dysfunction, ambulatory surgery, ambulatory care, and surgery.
RESULTS: Among 171 publications retrieved (51 PubMed, 73 EMBASE, 3 Cochrane, 2 using MEDES and 42 manual searching), 5 studies were finally selected. There were no significant differences between MAS or inpatient setting in terms of the type of device, surgical approach, or location of reservoir. Complication rates observed in both groups were similar. Implantation of PP in MAS was less expensive than inpatient surgery and was associated with acceptable patient satisfaction rates and adequate pain control.
CONCLUSIONS: Studies demonstrated that outpatient PP surgery can achieve similar outcomes in terms of safety and satisfaction to implantation of PP in the inpatient setting, while it could reduce costs and improve the efficiency. This research could support decision makers to extend PP surgery into the ambulatory setting.