Skip to main content

Les prothèses gonflables dans le traitement de l'impuissance: résultats de 80 implantations

Resume

La chirurgie prothétique de l'impuissance a été transformée par l'apparition des prothèses gonflables détrônant les modèles semi-rigides plus anciens. L'engouement suscité par cette nouvelle technique a aujourd'hui laissé place à des interrogations sur les résultats fonctionnels et les complications de cette chirurgie rarement étudiés de manière concomitante dans la littérature. Nous rapportons notre expérience à propos de 80 mises en place de prothèses gonflables posées entre octobre 1987 et octobre 1994. Le suivi moyen est de 3 ans, l'évaluation des résultats objectifs (fonctionnement mécanique de la prothèse, complications) et subjectifs (sexualité des patients), porte sur 68 patients. Les résultats sont:

  • • 54,5% d'anomalies de fonctionnement,

  • • 7% d'infections de la prothèse,

  • • 27,5% d'ablations du matériel.

La majorit\'e des patients se d\'eclarent satisfaits bien que seulement 65% ont repris une activit\'e sexuelle r\'eguli\`ere.

Abstract

The prosthetic surgery of impotence has been transformed by the onset of inflatable prostheses which have superseded the old semi-rigid designs.

Objective

The goal of this study is the evaluation of the functionnal results and the complications of this type of surgery. Such questions have been poorly discussed in the literature.

Methods

We report our experience on 80 inflatable prostheses that were implanted between october 1987 and october 1994. The mean follow-up is 3 years and the assessment of the objective (mechanical functioning of the prosthesis and complications) and sujective results (sexuality of the patients) is carried out on 68 patients.

Results

The results are the following:

  • • 54.5% of functioning disturbances,

  • • 7% of infections,

  • • 27.5% of prosthesis removals.

Most of the patients considered they were satisfied although only 65% returned to a regular sexual activity.

References

  1. 1.

    BONDIL P., RIGOT J.M.: Les indications de prothèses péniennes. Contracept. Fertil. Sexual., 1986, 14, 1025–1029.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    BISHOP J.R., MOUL J.W., SIHELNIC S.A., PEPPAS D.S., GORMLEY T.S. and McLEOD D.G.: Use of glycosylated hemoglobin to identify diabetics at high risk for penile periprosthetic infections. J. Urol., 1992, 147, 386–388.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    BRETAN P.N., M.D., Jr.: History of the prosthetic treatment of impotence. Urol. Clin. N. Amer. 1989, 16, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    BROOKS M.B.: 42 months of experience with MENTOR inflatable penile prothesis. J. Urol.; 1988, 139, 48–49.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    BUCH JP, ZORN BH, TAYLOR RJ: Cost — benefit analysis of pharmacologic erection program versus penile prosthesis. Urology, 1991, 37(2), 116–118.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    CARSON C.C., and ROBERTSON C.N.: Late hematogenous infection of penile prostheses. J. Urol., 1988, 139, 50–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    CUMMING J. and PRYOR J.P.: Treatment of organic impotence. British Journal of Urology., 1991, 67, 640–643.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    DELAGER S. THOMAS M.: L'impuissance: possibilités thérapeutiques. Ann. Med. Interne., 1990, 4, 367–373.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    EENGEL R.M.E., SMOLEV J.K. and HACKLER R.: Experience with the MENTOR inflatable penile prothesis. J. Urol., 1986, 135, 1181–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    FALLON B., GHANEM H.: Sexual performance and satisfaction with penile prosthesis in impotence of various etiologies. Int. J. Impotence Res., 1990, 2, 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    FEIN RL.: GFS Mark II inflatable penile prosthesis: four — year clinical study. Urology, 1994, 43(2), 209–213.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    FURLOW W.L., GOLDWASSER B. and GUNDIAN J.C.: Implantation of AMS 700 penile prosthesis: long term results. J. Urol., 1988, 139, 741–742.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    GARBER BB.: Mentor alpha 1 inflatable penile prosthesis: patient satisfaction and device reliability. Urology, 1994, 43(2), 214–217.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    GOLDSTEIN I, BERTERO EB, KAUFMAN JM, WITTEN FR et al.: Early experience with the first pre-connected 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis: the Mentor alpha 1. J. urol, 1993, 150(6), 1814–1818.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    GREGORY J.G., PURCELL M.H. and STANDEVEN J.: The inflatable penile prosthesis: failure of the rear tip extender in reducing the incidence of cylinder leakage. J. Urol., 1984, 131, 668–669.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    KABALIN J.N. and KESSLER R.: Infectious complications of penile prosthesis surgery. J. Urol. 1988, 139, 953–955.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    KAUFMAN J.J., BOXER R.J., BOXER B. and QUINN M.C.: Physical and psychological results of penile prothesis: A statical survey. J. Urol., 1981, 126, 173–175.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    KAUFMAN J.J., LINDNER A. and RAZ S.: Complication of penile prothesis surgery for impotence. J. Urol., 1982, 128, 1192–1194.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    LUE F.T., TANAGHO E.A.: Physiology of erection and pharmacological management of impotence. Urology, 1987, 137, 829–835.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    JOSEPH D.B., BRUSKEWITZ R.C. and BENSON R.C.: Long term evaluation of the inflatable penile prothesis. J. Urol., 1984, 131, 670–673.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    McLAREN R.H. and BARRETT D. M.: Patient and partner satisfaction with the AMS 700 penile prosthesis. J. Urol., 1992, 147, 63–65.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    MERRILL D.C.: MENTOR inflatable prothesis. Urol. Clin. N. Amer. 1989, 16, 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    MONTAGUE D.K.: Periprosthetic infections. J. Urol., 1987, 138, 68–69.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    MONTAGUE D.K.: Penile prothesis, an overview. Urol. Clin. N. Amer., 1989, 16, 7–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    PEDERSEN B., TIEFER L., RUIZ M. and MELMAN A.: Evaluation of patients and partners 1 to 4 years after penile prosthesis surgery. J. Urol., 1988, 139, 956–958.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    RADOMSKI S.B., and HERSCHORN S.: Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection. J. Urol., 1992, 147, 383–385.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    RANDRUP E, WILSON S, MOBLEY D, SUAREZ G, MEKRAS G, BAUM N.: Clinical experience with Mentor alpha 1 inflatable penile prosthesis. Report of 333 cases. Urology, 1993, 42, 305–310.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    SCHLAMOWITZ K.E., BEUTLER R.E., SCOTT F.B., KARAKAN I. and WARE S.: Reaction of the implantation of inflatable prothesis among psychogenally and organically impotent men. J. Urol., 1983, 129, 295–298.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    SCOTT F.B., BRADLEY W.E. and TIMM G.W.: Management of erectile impotence. Use of implantable prosthesis. Urology, 1973, 1, 80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    STEINKOHL W.B. and LEACH G.E.: Mechanical complications associated with MENTOR inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology, 1991, 38, 32–34.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    THOMALA J.V., THOMPSON S.T., ROWLAND R.G. and MULCAHY J.J.: Infectious complications of penile prosthetic implants. J. Urol., 1987, 138, 65–67.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    VIRAG R.: Intracavernous injection of papaverine for erectile failure. Lancet, 1982, 2, 938.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    WALTERS F.P., NEAL D.E., REGE A.B., GEORGE W.J., RICCI M.J. and HELLSTROM W.J.N.: Cavernous tissue antibiotic levels in penile prosthesis surgery. J. Urol., 1992, 147, 1282–1284.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    WESPES E.: Impuissance organique masculine. Acta. Urol. Belg. 1987, 55, 1–330.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    WILSON K.S., WAHMAN G.E. and LANGE J.L.: Eleven years of experience with the inflatable penile prosthesis. J. Urol., 1988, 139, 951–952.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    WOODWORTH B.E., CARSON C.C. and WEBSTER G.D.: Inflatable penile prothesis: effect of device modification on functional longevity. Urology., 1991, 38, 533–536.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rossi, D., Bladou, F., Ayuso, D. et al. Les prothèses gonflables dans le traitement de l'impuissance: résultats de 80 implantations. Androl. 6, 208–213 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03034450

Download citation

Mots clés

  • impuissance
  • prothèse pénienne

Key words

  • impotence
  • penile prosthesis