293 Satisfaction with Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in Patients with History of ischemic Priapism

Le résumé fourni par la source

Prolonged episodes of ischemic priapism result in significant corporal fibrosis and ultimate loss of erectile function. Implantation of penile prosthesis is a well-established treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED) related to priapism. However, questions regarding optimal device choice and timing of the surgery remain incompletely answered. This report presents surgical and patient-reported outcomes following inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation in patients with prior history of ischemic priapism. Consecutive records of patients who underwent IPP implantation at our institution between May 2007 and January 2018 were queried retrospectively. Medical records of patients with a history of ischemic priapism who underwent IPP implantation were evaluated. Patient demographics, pre-operative workup, intra-operative maneuvers and post-operative follow-up data were analyzed with use of standard statistics. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a phone-administered EDITS (Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction) questionnaire. Records of nineteen men were identified. Average patient age was 41 years (range: 21-86yo) and twelve men (63.2%) were African-American. Six men had history of sickle cell disease. Two out of nineteen men underwent an immediate prosthesis implantation. Thirteen men had significant intra-cavernosal fibrosis and required complex reconstructive maneuvers. Only one patient (in the immediate IPP group) necessitated prosthesis removal due to infection. Five out of seventeen (29%) living patients responded to the EDITS questionnaire. Four out of the five patients were overall very satisfied with the treatment while one was very dissatisfied. This was further confirmed with the mean EDITS index score of 67.3, ranging from 6.8 to 100 (indicating extremely low and extremely high treatment satisfaction, respectively).

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.