AMS malleable penile prosthesis

Dørflinger, T; Bruskewitz, Reginald C.

doi:10.1016/0090-4295(86)90147-0

Cited by 28 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also an endo scopic operation is difficult because of a fixed penile length. The 96.7% functional success rate in our 61 patients who had the AMS Malleable 600 Penile Prosthe sis implanted is similar to those reported by others [4,5,12,13]. Complications have been minimal.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Although erosion was encountered most fre quently in patients who had previous damage to the cor pora cavernosa [14], neither of our 2 patients had such a risk factor. In the literature, Dorflingerand Bruskewitz [4] and Moul and McLeod [6] reported 1.8 and 1.9% erosion rates with the AMS 600 Malleable prosthesis, respective ly. Also, Lynch et al [15] reported erosion in 3 patients who had the original AMS 600 prosthesis inserted and also none of their patients had any known risk factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Low prod uct cost, ease of insertion, simple use requiring little or no manual dexterity and good axial rigidity are the other advantages of these implants. However, cosmetic limita tions such as conccalability and persistent rigidity and dif ficulty in performing endoscopic operations due to fixed penile length are their limitations [4][5][6], On the other hand, inflatable penile prostheses have cosmetic superior ity and the ability to have alternate firmness and flaccidity to the penis, and the advantage of performing endo scopic operations without difficulty due to the flaccid penis. Difficulty with inflation and deflation, buckling during intercourse and mechanical failure are the disad vantages of these implants [7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical Experience with Inflatable and Malleable Penile Implants in 104 Patients

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Penile prosthesis was implanted for erectile impotence of mainly organic origin in 104 patients. The AMS Dynaflex penile prosthesis was inserted in 39 cases, the AMS Malleable 600 prosthesis in 61 and the AMS Ultrex Plus prosthesis in 4. In 1 patient receiving a malleable prosthesis both rods had to be removed owing to erosion into the urethra and reimplantation was performed at the same operation. Only 1 patient who underwent implantation of the Dynaflex device had mechanical failure that necessitated surgical revision. After implantation of the new prosthesis both patients had satisfactory intercourse. One Dynaflex penile prosthesis, implanted into a juvenile-onset diabetic, became infected and required removal. Another complication was secondary to spontaneous erosion (noninfected) in 1 patient with malleable prosthesis who suffered loss of only one rod and who is still satisfied with the result. The overall complication rate in our series has been approximately 4%. The rest of the patients report satisfaction with the ability to move the penis voluntarily permitting normal sexual activities as well as normal appearance in the flaccid position. According to our experience, careful preoperative assessment from the views of both patient and device selection along with patient education, and strictly obeying the rules of sterility during implantation and applying systemic and local antimicrobial prophylaxis are essential in obtaining a successful result in prosthesis implantation for the individual patient.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical Experience with Inflatable and Malleable Penile Implants in 104 Patients

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…25,26 This malleable silicone device contained a twisted stainless steel wire core wrapped in fabric. Three lengths were provided with length adjustment between sizes being made by the addition of rear tip extenders.…”

Section: Pastmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25,26 The AMS Malleable 650 device has a fabric-wrapped stainless steel core. 27 It comes in 12, 14, 16 and 18 cm lengths with adjustment between lengths being made by the addition of rear tip extenders.…”

Section: Presentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Penile prosthesis implantation: past, present and future

Simmons

Montague

2008

Int J Impot Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Penile prosthesis implantation is the oldest effective treatment for erectile dysfunction. This review examines the past, present and future of penile prosthesis implantation. Advances in prosthetic design and implantation techniques have resulted today in devices that produce nearly normal flaccid and erect states, and have remarkable freedom from mechanical failure. The future of prosthetic design holds promises for even more improvements.

show abstract

Penile Prostheses

Pryor¹

1992

Clinical Practice in Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AMS malleable penile prosthesis

Cited by 28 publications

References 11 publications

Clinical Experience with Inflatable and Malleable Penile Implants in 104 Patients

Clinical Experience with Inflatable and Malleable Penile Implants in 104 Patients

Penile prosthesis implantation: past, present and future

Penile Prostheses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About