<p>Tissue response to applied loading using different designs of penile compression clamps</p>

Abstract

Background: Penile compression devices (PCD) or clamps are applied to compress the urethra and prevent urinary incontinence (UI). PCDs are more secure and less likely to leak than pads, allowing men the opportunity to participate in short-term, vigorous activities. However, they are uncomfortable, can cause pressure ulcers (PU) and affect penile blood flow. No objective assessment of tissue health has been undertaken to assess and compare different PCD designs and to provide guidance on safe use. Objective: This study was designed to evaluate existing PCDs in terms of their physiological response and potential for pressure-induced injury. Design, setting and participants: Six men with post-prostatectomy UI tested four selected PCDs at effective pressures, in a random order, in a controlled laboratory setting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Using objective methods for assessing skin injury, PCDs were measured in situ for their effects on circulatory impedance, interface pressures and inflammatory response. Results and limitations: There was evidence for PCD-induced circulatory impedance in most test conditions. Interface pressures varied considerably between both PCDs and participants, with a mean value of 137.4±69.7 mmHg. In some cases, penile skin was noted to be sensitive to loading with elevated concentration of the cytokine IL-1α after 10 mins wear, indicating an inflammatory response. IL-1α levels were restored to baseline 40 mins following PCD removal. Conclusion: Skin health measures indicated tissue and blood flow compromise during the 50 mins of testing using all PCDs. Although there was an elevation in pro-inflammatory cytokines, PCDs did not cause sustained irritation and skin health measures recovered 40 mins after PCD removal. This research indicates that application of a clamp for one hour with an equal clamp free time before reapplication is likely to be safe. Longer periods are often recommended by manufacturers but have yet to be tested.

Comparative analysis of conventional penile clamps and Uriclak device in managing male incontinence following radical, turp, or laser prostate surgery

“…The study ( 7 ) involved six men who underwent prostate surgery, evaluating four distinct commercial brands. Among these, three were Cunninghan clamps equipped with closures, while the remaining brand was the Uriclak urethral compression device.…”

“…Penile clamps, designed to compress the urethra, effectively control involuntary urine leakage. Their advantages ( 4 – 7 ) are noteworthy.…”

“…Some studies ( 4 , 5 , 7 ) suggest the potential for penile inflammation and restricted blood circulation with excessive use. Following the manufacturers' instructions to reposition the clamps every 2/3 h (each time one urinates) helps prevent these effects ( 8 ).…”