Skip to main content

Advertisement

Erecteur a dépression (Vacuum erection device): Mise au point

Vacuum erection device

Article metrics

  • 278 Accesses

Resume

L’érecteur à dépression (Vacuum erection device) est une méthode thérapeutique palliative de l’insuffisance érectile utilisant le vide et un anneau constricteur. Il provoque une érection dont les caractéristiques sont différentes de lérection naturelle en raison d’une réduction du flux sanguin pénien et de la température cutanée, d’une congestion des tissus extra-caverneux, d’une bascule de la verge et d’un blocage de l’éjaculation. Les résultats de la littérature nous permettent d’estimer qu’environ 30 à 60% des patients à qui une période d’essai a été proposée achètent l’érecteur. 60 à 80% des acheteurs continuent d’utiliser le système à moyen terme. Les abandons semblent moins fréquents qu’avec les auto-injections intra-caverneuses. Les inconvénients du système, outre ceux liés aux caractéristiques de l’érection, sont dominés par les douleurs et la survenue de pétéchies ou ecchymoses au niveau de la verge. Actuellement, au même titre que les autoinjections intra-caverneuses, l’érecteur concerne les patients ne réagissant pas aux nouveaux traitements oraux ou ne pouvant prendre ceux-ci en raison d’une contre-indication.

Abstract

The vacuum erection device (VED) is a nonsurgical alternative for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

This method is based on 2 phenomena:

  1. 1)

    an erection-like state occurs when the penis is placed in a vacuum

  2. 2)

    this state can be maintained by a constricting band placed around the base of the penis

The erection-like state thus obtained differs from a normal erection in the following ways:

  1. 1)

    blood flow into the penis decreases

  2. 2)

    penile skin temperature falls

  3. 3)

    congestion of extra-corporeal penile tissues occurs

  4. 4)

    the penis pivots at its base

  5. 5)

    the ejaculate is trapped in the proximal urethra

About 30 to 60% of men who trie the device at home purchase it for continued use. The others are unable to achieve sufficient rigidity, experience side-effects or dislike the use of the device despite good result. About 60 to 80% of the men who purchased the device continue to use it regulary at short or middle term. The VED seems to have lesser drop-out rate than the self injection therapy.

The most frequently encountered side-effects of the device are pain, petechiaes, bruising and ecchymosis.

References

  1. 1.

    BALTACI S., AYDOS K., KOSAR A., ANAFARTA K.: Treating erectile dysfunction with a vacuum tumescence device: a retrospective analysis of acceptance and satisfaction. Br. J. Urol., 1995, 76: 757–760

  2. 2.

    BRODERICK G.A., MCGAHAN J.P., STONE A.R., DEVERE WHITE R. The hemodynamics of vacuum constriction erections: assessment by color doppler ultrasound. J. Urol., 1992, 147: 57–61.

  3. 3.

    CHEN J., GODSCHALK M.F., KATZ P.G., MULLIGAN T.: Combining intracavernous injection and external vacuum as teatment for erectile dysfunction. J. Urol., 1995, 153: 1476–1477.

  4. 4.

    COKSON M.S., NADIG P.W.: Long-term results with vacuum constriction device. J. Urol., 1993, 149: 290–294.

  5. 5.

    DENIL J., OHL D.A., SMYTHE C.: Vacuum erection device in spinal cord injured men: patient and partner satisfaction. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 1996, 77: 750–753.

  6. 6.

    DIEDERICHS W., KAULA N.F., LUE T.F. ET TANAGHO E.A.: The effect of subatmospheric pressure on the simian penis. J. Urol., 1989 142: 1087–1089

  7. 7.

    EARLE C.M., SEAH M., COULDEN S.E., STUCKEY B.G., KEOGH E.J.: The use of the vacuum erection device in the management of erectile impotence. Int. J. Impot. Res., 1996, 8: 237–240.

  8. 8.

    GILBERT H.W., GINGELL J.C.: Vacuum constriction devices: second-line conservative treatment for impotence. Br. J. Urol., 1993, 70:81–83.

  9. 9.

    GIULIANO F., AMAR E., THIOUNN N. et al.: Etude rétrospective de l’efficacité et de l’acceptabilité du vacuum pour le traitement des troubles de l’érection. Prog. Urol., 1997, 7 Suppl. 1: 10A.

  10. 10.

    GOULD J.E., SWITTERS D.M., BRODERICK G.A., DEVERE WHITE R.W.: External vacuum devices: a clinical comparison with pharmacologic erections. World J. Urol. 1992, 10: 68–70

  11. 11.

    KATZ P.G., HADEN H.T., MULLIGAN T. ET ZASLER N.D.: The effect of vacuum devices on penible hemodynamics. J. Urology, 1990, 143: 55–56

  12. 12.

    LEDERER O.: Surgical device, U.S. Patent number 1, 1917, 225, 341: Mar 8.

  13. 13.

    LEWIS R.W., WITHERINGTON R.: External vacuum therapy for erectile dysfunction: use and results. World, J. Urol., 1997, 15: 78–82

  14. 14.

    MARMAR J.L., DEBENEDICTS T.J. ET PRAISS D.E.: Penile plethysmography on impotent men using vacuum constrictor devices. Urology, 1988, 32: 198–203.

  15. 15.

    MARMAR J.L., DEBENEDICTIS T.J. ET PRAISS D.E.: The use of vacuum constrictor device to augment a partiel erection following an intracavernous injection. J. Urology, 1988, 140: 975–979.

  16. 16.

    MEINHARDT W., LYCKLAMA A NIJEHOLT A.A.B., KROPMAN R.F., ZWARTENDIJK J.: The negative pressure device for erectile disorders: when does it fail? J. Urol., 1993, 149: 1285–1287

  17. 17.

    MONTAGUE D.K., BARADA J.H., BELKER A.M. et al.: Clinical guidelines panel on erectile dysfunction: summary report on the treatment of organic erectile dysfunction. Urol., 1996, 156: 2007–2011

  18. 18.

    MOUL J.W. ET MACLEOD D.G.: Negative pressure devices in the explanted penile prosthesis population. J. Urology, 1989, 142: 729–731

  19. 19.

    NADIG P.W.: Utility of the vacuum-constriction device for men who have failed penile prostheses. J. Urology, 1986, 135: 232A

  20. 20.

    NADIG P.W., WARE J.C. ET BLUMOFF R.: Noninvasive device to produce and maintain an erectionlike state. Urology, 1986, 27: 126–131

  21. 21.

    SIDI A.A., BECHER E.F., ZHANG G., LEWIS J.H.: Patient acceptance of and satisfaction with an external negative pressure device for impotence. J. Urol., 1990, 144: 1154–1156

  22. 22.

    SODERDAHL D.W., THRASHER J.B., HANSBERRY K.L.: Intracavernosal drug-induced erection therapy versus external vacuum devices in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Br. J. Urol., 1997, 79: 952–957

  23. 23.

    STRUB M.D. ET MICHAELS E.K.: Diagnostic artificial erection without corpus cavernosum injection. J. Urology, 1990, 143: 562.

  24. 24.

    TURNER L.A., ALTHOF S.E., LEVINE S.B., BODNER D.R., KURSH E.D., RESNICK M.I.: Twelve-month comparison of two treatments for erectile dysfunction: self-injection versus external vacuum devices. Urology, 1992, 39: 139–144

  25. 25.

    VRIJHOF H.J.E.J., DELAERE K.P.J.: Vacuum constriction devices in erectile dysfunction: acceptance and effectiveness in patients with impotence of organic or mixed aetiology. Br. J. Urol., 1994, 74: 102–105

  26. 26.

    WITHERINGTON R.: The Osbon Erecaid System in the management of erectile impotence. Urology, 1985, 133: 190A

  27. 27.

    WITHERINGTON R.: Vacuum constriction device for management of erectile impotence. J. Urology, 1989, 141: 320–322

  28. 28.

    YACHIA D.: Negative pressure induced erection for the assessment of impotent patients with Peyronie’s disease. Br. J. Urology, 1990, 66: 106–107

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to D. Delavierre.

Additional information

Nous dédions ce travail au Docteur Perry W. NADIG, disparu en 1997, qui fut un pionnier dans l’utilisation de l’érecteur à dépression et contribua à sa reconnaissance par le monde scientifique.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Delavierre, D. Erecteur a dépression (Vacuum erection device): Mise au point. Androl. 9, 53–59 (1999) doi:10.1007/BF03034380

Download citation

Mots-clés

  • Dysfonction érectile
  • impuissance sexuelle
  • érecteur à dépression

Key-words

  • Impotence
  • erectile dysfunction
  • vacuum erection device