Skip to main content

La consultation psychologique dans l’indication d’une prothèse pénienne : une expérience originale de complémentarité médicopsychologique

The psychological consultation in the indication of a penile prosthesis: an original experience of medical and psychological complementarity

Résumé

Au Centre d’Étude et de Traitement des Insuffisances Sexuelles Masculines (CETISM) de notre département universitaire d’urologie, une consultation psychologique est systématiquement programmée lorsque la prothèse pénienne est considérée par le patient — et l’urologue — comme une solution possible de sa défaillance érectile.

Cette consultation comporte trois objectifs essentiels: repérer les cas — rares — de contre-indication psychopathologique, compléter l’information déjà donnée au patient lors des consultations médicochirurgicales et explorer les aspects relationnels, affectifs, cognitifs et érotiques susceptibles d’intervenir dans la prise de décision et dans l’intégration de la solution prothétique.

Elle vise aussi et surtout à rendre à l’homme sa position centrale, active, non seulement dans la prise de décision, mais encore dans l’élaboration d’un projet de vie qui tient compte de cette décision (positive ou négative), position qu’il a souvent perdue au moment où il est devenu « impuissant ».

Abstract

In the Center for the Study and Treatment of Male Sexual Dysfunction (CETISM) of our University Department of Urology, a psychological consultation is systematically provided when penile prosthesis implantation is considered by the patient — and the urologist — as a possible solution to his erectile dysfunction. This consultation has three key objectives: to identify — rare — cases of psychological contraindication, to complete the information already given to the patient during urologic consultations, and to explore the relational, emotional, cognitive and erotic aspects that could influence the decision-making and the integration of the prosthetic solution. It is also and especially to give to the man a central position, an active position, not only for the decision-making, but also for developing a life project which takes into account the decision (positive or negative), a position he often lost from the time he had become “powerless”.

Références

  1. Mulcahy JJ, Austoni E, Barada JH, et al (2004) The penile implant for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 1:98–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Levine LA, Rybak J (2011) Traction therapy for men with shortened penis prior to penile prosthesis implantation: a pilot study. J Sex Med 8:2112–2117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE (2000) Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of 700CX of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. J Urol 164: 376–380

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Awwad Z, Abu-Hijleh M, Basri S, et al (2005) Penile measurements in normal adult Jordanians and in patients with erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 17:191–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Agrawal V, Ralph D (2006) An audit of implanted penile prostheses in the UK. BJU Int 98:393–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kempeneers P, Andrianne R, Mormont C (1994) La prothèse pénienne: contrariétés d’une virilité artificielle. Sexologies 3:26–30

    Google Scholar 

  7. Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A (2001) Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: result of a 2 center study. J Urol 166:932–937

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Henry G, Wilson S. (2007) Updates in inflatable penile prosthesis. Urol Clin North Am 34:535–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Andrianne R, Balde S, de Leval J, et al (1995) Penile prosthesis in case of impotence: 12 years of clinical experience. Acta Urol Bel 63:89–96

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Souillac I, Pignot G, Galiano M, et al (2009) Implants péniens hydrauliques: résultats, complications et facteurs pronostiques. Prog Urol 19:563–571

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stewart T, Gerson S (1976) Penile prosthesis: psychologic factors. Urology 7:400–402

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Blake D, McCartney C, Fried F, Fehrenbaker L (1983) Psychiatric assessment of penile implant recipient. Preliminary study. Urology 21:252–256

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Schover L, von Eschenbach A (1985) Sex therapy and the penile prosthesis: a synthesis. J Sex Marital Ther 11:57–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ulloa E, Silberbogen A, Brown K (2008) Preoperative psychosocial evaluation of penile prosthesis candidates. Am J Ment Health 2:68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Andrianne.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mormont, C., Andrianne, R. La consultation psychologique dans l’indication d’une prothèse pénienne : une expérience originale de complémentarité médicopsychologique. Basic Clin. Androl. 22, 74–79 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12610-012-0175-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12610-012-0175-2

Mots clés

Keywords