Experience with Tube® (Promedon) Malleable Penile Implant

Abstract

Introduction: The main advantages of semirigid penile prosthesis are simple implantation, ease of use, very low risk of mechanical failure and more financial suitability for patients in developing countries. Aim: To evaluate reliability and safety of Tube® (Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina) penile prosthesis in the surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction. Patients and Methods: This retrospective case series was conducted on 83 patients who underwent Tube penile implant surgeries between 2001 and 2006. The choice of Promedon penile implant was determined by the patient himself. Strict infection control measures were applied. Patients were followed up for stability of vital signs and discharged within 72 h. Results: Successful sexual intercourse was possible for 75 (90.4%) of cases. Common postoperative complaintswere: prosthesis too short in 27 cases (32.5%), not happy with the appearance of the penis in 8 cases (9.6%), non-specific pain which subsided spontaneously in 20 cases (24%), in which no further intervention was done apart from reassurance. 79 (95.2%) patients were on regular follow-up for the first year and the rest dropped out. None of the patients experienced prosthetic infection postoperatively. Crural cross-perforation (4%) was managed intraoperatively. Hematomas (1.6%) were managed conservatively. Retarded ejaculation (10%) and penile hypothesia (0.8%) resolved spontaneously within 6 months in all cases. Conclusion: The Promedon malleable penile prosthesis is reliable and safe in the surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Surgical outcomes and complications of Tube® (Promedon) malleable penile prostheses in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction

“…In the present study, inter-corporeal septal perforation occurred in 2.3% and small glanular urethral injury in 1.5% of patients due to difficult expansion caused by cavernosal tissue fibrosis and early experience with penile implant surgery. Whereas, Fathy et al [8] reported urethral injury and corporeal perforation in 0% in their series and Song et al [20] reported corporeal perforation in three of 224 patients in their series.…”

“…Although, their reliability has improved in the last decade, their complications are still present [7]. The ease of use, simplicity of implantation, the rarity of mechanical failure, and cost-effectiveness make malleable penile prostheses more convenient for our patients [8]. The present study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcome, complications, and patients, satisfaction with Tube® malleable penile prosthesis (Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina) in diabetic and non-diabetic patients with refractory ED.…”

Infrapubic versus Penoscrotal Approaches for Implantation of Semi-Rigid Penile Prosthesis

“…In Egypt the semi-rigid implant is commonly used in management of erectile dysfunction not only for its technical facility to be applied and less incidence of mechanical failure but also due to low cost [5]. To our knowledge, most surgeons prefer the Penoscrotal approach during application of malleable implant but infrapubic approach were preferred for inflatable prosthesis [7].…”

“…This may be due to low cost, easy application, easy use and less incidence of mechanical complications. The drawbacks of semi-rigid penile implants include permanent erections, inability to mask it and liability for prolonged pain and erosion [5]. There are no available studies to compare infrapubic approach with various approaches for semi-rigid penile implant.…”

Penile prosthesis implantation: past, present and future

“…Currently 48 This device permits malleability up to a 1301 angle. The proximal segments are trimmable every 5 mm and there are both 10 and 15 mm rear tips.…”