A cohort of 20 patients with delayed priapism who underwent treatment at the Emergency Department of our academic referral centers between January 2002 and April 2010 was studied. Of these, 16 cases suffered from a low-flow priapism. A total of 6 cases were managed nonsurgically, 10 required shunt surgery, and of these 5 were treated by early penile prosthesis surgery. Prostheses were easily implanted in all patients with a mean operative time of 94 min. No intraoperative complications and no infection were registered. All patients with an inflatable prosthesis complained a reduction in penile sensibility that lasted 3 months. All patients were satisfied with the results of surgery (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire-5, Q5 mean value 4), and all were successfully engaging in satisfactory sexual intercourses. No significant loss of penile length, neither apical erosion nor extrusion was recorded. Early insertion of a penile prosthesis is a simple and safe procedure in patients with ischemic priapism, which failed to respond to conservative management. Early insertion of a prosthesis helps to maintain adequate penile length, resolve priapism and, in the long term, it results in high satisfaction rates.
What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Chronic urinary retention (CUR) is a poorly defined entity, as the key element of definition, significant postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), has not a worldwide and moreover evidenced‐based definition. There is no agreement on which is the threshold value to define a significant PVR and different society produced guidelines with different thresholds ranging from 300 mL to 1000 mL. Diagnosis is difficult, and management has not been defined yet. There is a lack of studies on the best management of these patients, as this group of patients has always been considered at high risk of failure. Only one study compares conservative with the surgical management but it is not a randomised controlled trail. This review offers a systematic appraisal of the most recent publications on CUR. It indicates the absence of a real worldwide agreed definition, as the two keys element of it are not satisfactorily defined yet: significant PVR, is suffering from a lack of evidenced‐based definition, and percussable or palpable bladder is a very nebulous concept as it is not a criteria of certainty as different individual variables affect it. This has an important effect on management which is not structured. Most of the trials involving benign prostatic hyperplasia treatments (either medical or surgical) tend to exclude this group of patients, which is a clinically important group, comprising up to a quarter of men undergoing TURP in the UK. Urinary retention describes a bladder that does not empty completely or does not empty at all. Historically, urinary retention has been classified as either acute or chronic the latter is generally classified as high pressure or low pressure according to the bladder filling pressure on urodynamic. A MEDLINE® search for articles written in English and published before January 2010 was done using a list of terms related to urinary retention: ‘urinary retention’, ‘chronic urinary retention’ and ‘PVR’. Chronic urinary retention (CUR) is defined by the International Continence Society as ‘a non‐painful bladder, which remains palpable or percussable after the patient has passed urine’. Abrams was the first to choose a residual urine volume >300 mL to define CUR as he considered it the minimum volume at which the bladder becomes palpable suprapubically. The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) guidelines define CUR as a postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) of >1000 mL. No studies have specifically addressed the problem of quantifying the minimum amount of urine present in the bladder to define CUR. Nor did we find any publications objectively assessing at what amount of urine a bladder can be palpable. The ability to feel a bladder may rely on variables (i.e. medical skills and patient habitus). There is a marked variability of PVR, so the test should be repeated to improve precision. As defining CUR is difficult, structured management is challenging. Nearly all prospective trials exclude m...
Implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is a well-established definitive solution for erectile dysfunction when conservative treatments fail. Penile implants may shorten the penis. The AMS 700 LGX IPP is in common use but reports on its mechanical reliability, medium-term postsurgical patient satisfaction, and mean penile length preservation are lacking. We investigate the mean penile length, mechanical reliability, and patient satisfaction at 6 and 12 months after implantation of the AMS 700 LGX. This prospective study consecutively enrolled men undergoing first-time IPP implant surgery from February 2009 to April 2012. Stretched flaccid penile length, penile length at 50% and 100% of stiffness (P50 and P100) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) scores, were measured at 6 and 12 months postsurgery. Of 45 patients who underwent AMS 700 LGX implantation (median age 61 years) and completed 6 months’ follow-up, 36 (80%) completed the study. A significant difference in stretched flaccid penile length was seen between 6 and 12 months (P = 0.033). P100 was also significantly increased at 6 and 12 months, with a mean 10% increase (1.3 ± 0.4 cm) from baseline to 12 months. Differences in mean IIEF scores at 6 and 12 months were significant for the desired domain (P = 0.0001) and for overall satisfaction (P = 0.002); however, mean EDITS scores at 6 and 12 months were not significantly improved. AMS 700 LGX is a powerful tool for preserving penile length in men undergoing penile prosthesis implantation.
The study will provide information on patients' quality of life and its variations over time in relation to the treatments received for the prostate cancer.
Introduction The phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors are generally well tolerated and effective for treating erectile dysfunction (ED), including in patients with significant comorbidity. Because of this benign safety profile, investigators have used PDE5 inhibitors to treat patients with ED and severe renal disease or those who have received renal transplants. Aim To assess safety and efficacy of PDE5 inhibitors in patients receiving dialysis or renal transplants. Main Outcome Measures Erectile function as assessed by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Global Assessment Questions; adverse events (AEs). Methods We reviewed published studies of PDE5 inhibitors in patients receiving dialysis or renal transplants. Results In double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients receiving dialysis or renal transplants, sildenafil significantly improved erectile function as assessed by the IIEF, and 75–85% of patients reported improved erectile function on Global Assessment Questions; efficacy was more variable in less well-controlled studies. In >260 patients undergoing dialysis who received sildenafil in clinical studies, there were only six reported discontinuations because of AEs (headache [N=3], headache and nausea [N=1], gastrointestinal [N=1], and symptomatic blood pressure decrease [N=1]). In approximately 400 patients with renal transplants who received sildenafil, only three patients discontinued because of AEs. Vardenafil improved IIEF scores of up to 82% of renal transplant recipients in randomized, controlled studies (N=59, total), with no reported discontinuations because of AEs. Limited data also suggest benefit with tadalafil. Conclusions ED is common in patients undergoing renal dialysis or postrenal transplant and substantially affects patient quality of life. Sildenafil and vardenafil appear to be efficacious and well tolerated in patients receiving renal dialysis or transplant.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.