Multi-Institutional Outcome Study on the Efficacy of Closed-Suction Drainage of the Scrotum in Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery

Sadeghi‐Nejad, Hossein; Ilbeigi, Pedram; Wilson, Steve; Delk, John R.; Siegel, Andrew L.; Seftel, Allen D.; Shannon, Larry R.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00581-1

Cited by 22 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Carson reports that the combination of any other procedure (i.e., hernia repair, circumcision) with penile prosthesis surgery is associated with a significant increase in infections in his series [66]. A multi-institutional outcome study of closedsuction drainage of the scrotum for approximately 12-24 hours following three-piece IPP surgery revealed that this practice does not result in an increased infection rate and is associated with a very low incidence of postoperative hematoma formation, swelling, and ecchymosis [67].…”

Section: Infectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A Review of Prosthetic Devices and Associated Complications

Sadeghi‐Nejad

2007

The Journal of Sexual Medicine

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Although more invasive than some of the other currently available therapies, penile prosthesis surgery has the advantages of high patient satisfaction rates and avoidance of systemic adverse events in the vast majority of cases. Aim This article provides a review of the more widely used implants and some of the more frequently encountered complications of penile prosthesis surgery. Methods A retrospective review peer reviewed publications relevant to the field of penile prosthesis surgery. Main Outcome Measures Review of historical milestones and newer penile prostheses, as well as a review of prosthesis surgery complications. Results Improved designs and materials have resulted in decreased incidence of mechanical failures or infectious complications while simultaneously simplifying the operation of these devices. Conclusion Penile prosthesis surgery remains an excellent alternative for restoring erectile function to those in whom medical therapies such as phosphodiesterase inhibitors are contraindicated or who have failed more conservative measures.

show abstract

Section: Infectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A Review of Prosthetic Devices and Associated Complications

Sadeghi‐Nejad

2007

The Journal of Sexual Medicine

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A study suggested that placing suction drains to reduce hematoma was not associated with an increased infection risk and, therefore, recommended [17]. Another study has demonstrated that performing implant surgery as a day-case procedure is associated with equal outcomes and notably reduces the cost [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Shebl¹,

Ali²

2017

OJU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Modification of surgical techniques to minimize wound infections in penile implant surgery using malleable prosthesis which is easy to use, of very low risk of mechanical failure and is financially suitable to improve outcome and ensures less complications. The aim of the study is to compare infrapubic approach and Penoscrotal approach in penile semi-rigid prosthesis implantation surgery. Patients and methods: Fifty patients were randomly divided into two groups and each group underwent one approach. Results: No statically significant differences were found between both groups in terms of operative time. Corporeal cross over was the most common intraoperative complications, 3 cases in IP approach and 6 cases in PS but not statistically significant. Peyronie's disease patients underwent penile implant through infrapubic approach in 3 cases and PS in 4 cases with one recorded complication of keloid formations with IP. Urethral false passage reported only in one case with PS approach without affecting the procedure. Only minor complications including superficial wound infection which was significantly more with PS, 6/25 (24%) and IP 1/25 (4%), p value = 0.041. Penile and scrotal edema was common with IP approach (92%) in comparison with PS approach (60%). The urethral catheter can be abandoned with IP to avoid the risk of catheterizations. No significant relation between diabetes and infections and no erosions were encountered. Conclusion: Through this research work, infrapubic approach is better than Penoscrotal approach even if it is not commonly used by surgeon.

show abstract

“…Результаты исследований показали, что использование системы активного низковакуум-ного дренирования не увеличивает уровень инфици-рованности и способствует более ранним срокам вос-становления. В большой серии из 425 первичных трехкомпонентных имплантаций протезов полового члена со средним периодом наблюдения в течение 18 мес было зарегистрировано 14 (3,3 %) инфекционных осложнений и 3 гематомы (0,7 %) [29].…”

Section: осложнения связанные с помпойunclassified

Complications after penile implant surgery

Popov¹,

Орлов²,

Grin³

et al. 2017

Androl. genit. hir.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-Institutional Outcome Study on the Efficacy of Closed-Suction Drainage of the Scrotum in Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery

Cited by 22 publications

References 15 publications

Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A Review of Prosthetic Devices and Associated Complications

Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A Review of Prosthetic Devices and Associated Complications

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

Complications after penile implant surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About