A Comparison Between AMS 700 and Coloplast Titan: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

There are only two three-piece inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) available to patients in the American market: the AMS (American Medical Systems) 700 TM series (Boston Scientific, Massachusetts) and the Coloplast Titan® series (Coloplast, Minnesota), and data comparing the two are scant. The aim of our study was to summarize the current scientific evidence comparing the two. A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed. A 10-year filter was placed to include only studies published after Coloplast launched the Titan Touch® release pump. Eligibility criteria included articles discussing specifically the AMS 700 TM and Coloplast Titan® models. Further searches for studies on patient/partner satisfaction were conducted. Abstracts were reviewed to include studies focusing specifically on the models we are studying and studies on patient satisfaction using the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire. The Coloplast device demonstrated slightly greater resistance to the stimulated forces of penetration and gravity. Coloplast implants coated with vancomycin/gentamicin had the highest infection rate followed by the AMS penile prosthesis and the rifampin/gentamicin coating had the lowest infection rate. Prosthesis durability and survival were similar between both brands. Overall satisfaction was high but comparisons are inconsistent. The literature is inconclusive about which device is superior. We suggest randomized, multicenter, prospective studies to help further elucidate the highlights of each product.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Sexual and Reproductive Health—2021 Update: Male Sexual Dysfunction

“…A detailed summary of the types of prostheses currently available, along with their effectiveness and complication profiles, can be found in the EAU guidelines [3]. Of note, currently there are also no head to head studies comparing the different manufacturers' implants, demonstrating superiority of one implant type over another [156].…”

Boston Scientific vs. Coloplast implants: A Prospective Analysis of a High-Volume Surgeon’s Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Experience.

“…This high rate of success in both devices speaks to the frequent innovation each prosthesis has undergone since their inception (12). These modi cations, such as alterations in the tubing to prevent kinking, changes in more durable and infectionresistant coatings to the cylinders, rear tip extenders enabling better device t, valves that prevent autoin ation, as shown in this series, xing pump malfunctions which led to a product recall, have helped optimize both brands of devices for long-term (14). Although, we obtained encouraging outcomes, a short period of follow-up may have limited the potential for uncovering a particular device's advantage as they undergo expected mechanical wear and tear over time (15).…”

Long-Term Survival Rates of Inflatable Penile Prostheses: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…5 Perhaps the most important concern that patients may have regarding PP relates to long-term device durability, potential for a reoperation, and the irreversibility of erectile function should the prosthesis prove to be ineffective. Current evidence on PP device durability is derived from individual reports, literature reviews without metaanalysis, 6,7 or meta-analyses focused only on device infection rates. [8][9][10] No known meta-analysis has been performed to objectively synthesize the existing PP literature base regarding all-cause device survival.…”