Search

Copyright of Basic & Clinical Andrology is the property of BioMed Central and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Basic & Clinical Andrology is the property of BioMed Central and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Basic & Clinical Andrology is the property of BioMed Central and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: Urological consultations for erectile dysfunction (ED) are increasing worldwide. Penile prosthesis (PP) implantations are performed when other treatments are unsuccessful. However, there is no data regarding PP implantations in France beyond the year 2016., Objectives: This study aimed to describe the changes in the number and type of PP implants used for the treatment of ED in France from 2016 to 2021 and the hospitalization rates following implantation using French national data from the Program for the Medicalization of Information Systems (PMSI)., Materials and Methods: We analyzed data on PP implantations in all France hospitals. PPs were coded into three types according to the Common Classification of Medical Procedures (CCAM). The number of patients admitted to hospital with complications twelve months after implantation was also recorded., Results: During the study period, 3675 men received 3868 PPs in France. A gradual increase in the total number of implanted PPs was observed, with an overall increase of 33.8%. In 2020, there was a sharp decline in the number of implanted PPs, primarily owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. The most commonly used implant was PPs with an extracavernous compartment, comprising 85% of all PPs. Twelve months after implantation, only 1-2% of the patients were rehospitalized., Conclusion: PP implantation surgeries are highly reproducible and have a low incidence of complications, in terms of rehospitalization after one year of placement (1.8%). Moreover, there was an increase in the demand for penile prosthesis implantations in France between 2016 and 2021., Level of Evidence: 4: Descriptive epidemiological study., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Copyright of Basic & Clinical Andrology is the property of BioMed Central and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: The objective of this study was to propose a French version of the satisfaction survey for inflatable penile implant (SSIPI) questionnaire., Material: Questionnaire validation was performed in three steps: translation into French by two urologists, its validation by the committee of andrologist and sexual medicine (CAMS) and an independent translation in English by another urologist to exclude any distortion with the original version. Furthermore, the questionnaire was tested in few patients having penile implant., Results: The andrology committee approved the French version of the questionnaire. The final version of the questionnaire was successfully tested on all patients. Every patient (n=10) confirmed the good comprehension and pertinence of the questions, and the easy response selection., Conclusion: This French version of the SSIPI questionnaire will allow French-speaking urologists to assess the satisfaction of their patients with a penile implant on a large scale., Level of Evidence: IV., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Copyright of Andrologie (11662654) is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Sexologies is the property of John Libbey Eurotext Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Andrologie (11662654) is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Andrologie (11662654) is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Andrologie (11662654) is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: We analyzed the long-term results of malleable and inflatable penile prosthesis: the rates of complications, revision surgery and patient satisfaction., Materials and Methods: Between January 1996 and December 2020, a total of 138 patients underwent implantation of a malleable or inflatable types penile prosthesis. The data of the patients were derived from the patient files and digital recording system. The patients were contacted face-to-face interaction if possible. If it is not possible, phone connection was made., Results: The median age of patients was 56 (21-83) years. Fourteen (10.2%) 1-piece, 46 (33.3%) 2-piece and 78 (56.5%) 3-piece penile prosthesis were implanted. The mostly used perioperative antibiotic was teicoplanin+amikacin in 107 patients. Total complication rate was 30% (n=42). Prosthesis infection constituted 9% (n=13) of these complications. The total satisfaction rate was 89.1%. There was no correlation between the complications and antibiotic regimen or prosthesis type (P=0.488, P=0.454, respectively). The rate of infection showed a slight increase in 3-piece penile prosthesis without any statistically significance (P=0.633). The patients with complications expressed more dissatisfaction compared to those without complications (P=0.001)., Conclusions: In our series, penile prosthesis implantation seems to be a recommended treatment method with high patient satisfaction in the treatment of refractory erectile dysfunction., Level of Evidence: 4., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Implantation of penile prosthesis is constantly growing but little long-term data is available concerning the associated factors of prosthesis survival. Our aim was to describe the long-term survival of penile prostheses and to identify factors influencing long-term prosthesis survival., Methods: This is a retrospective, monocentric cohort of patients who underwent their first implantation of a penile prosthesis, between May 2000 and March 2017, at the Reims University Hospital. Prosthesis survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. A univariate and multivariate analysis to estimate the risk of surgical removal/revision of the prosthesis was performed using a Cox model., Results: 150 patients were included, and 61 patients underwent surgical removal of the prosthesis (40.7%). Mean follow-up was 76.12 months (0-176 months). Prosthesis survival was 69.7% at 5 years (95% CI, 62.2-77.3) and 58.5% at 10 years (95% CI, 50.0-66.9). In multivariate analysis, the factors influencing prosthesis survival were: type of prosthesis (other vs. Coloplast TITAN®, HR 1.89, CI 95%, 1.03-3.45) and prosthesis final length (20-29cm vs. 12-17cm, HR 0.27, 95% CI, 0.09-0.77)., Conclusion: At 10 years, the penile prosthesis survival is close to 60%. Type of implant and final length of the prosthesis may have a significant influence in long-term prosthesis survival. Patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation must be informed about the risk of surgical removal/revision of the prosthesis., Level of Evidence: 3., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Penile prosthesis for erectile dysfunction in patients with spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis is sometimes discussed after failure of drug or instrumental treatments (vacuum). The objective of this study was to evaluate the complications, evolution and patient satisfaction after the implantation of a penile prosthesis in the neurological patient., Materials and Methods: Multi-center retrospective study of 27 consecutive patients including 18 spinal cord injured patients and 9 patients with multiple sclerosis benefiting from the implantation of a penile prosthesis for erectile dysfunction purposes in two French centers between 2009 and 2019. Post-implantation complications, evolution of the use of the prosthesis and global patient satisfaction were evaluated using the standardized questionnaire Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) during a telephone call between March and May 2020., Results: The average age of implantation was 46.4 years (±12.74). The length of follow-up to date of call was 6.05 years (±2.86). 8/27 patients (29.6 %) had at least one complication of any Clavien-Dindo grade included 2 infection. 2/27 (7,4 %) patients had a mechanical prosthesis injury during follow-up. The patient's dexterity with inflation of the prosthesis was perfect in 85 % of cases, and 75 % for deflation. The satisfaction rate for prosthesis use at the time of the call was 75.36/100pts for the patient and 66.88/100pts for the partner., Conclusion: This study found an increased rate of prothesis infection compared to the general population in the neurologic patient, but patient and partner satisfaction remain sustainable after more than 5 years of implantation. Dexterity was maintained over the long term, demonstrating a good selection of indications. These data invite to favorably consider the installation of a penile prosthesis in neurological patients who have failed first-line treatments., Level of Evidence: 4., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Inflatable penile prosthesis surgery is relatively rare in France, and around ten surgeons perform most of this surgery. The objective of this study was to define the learning curve concerning this surgery., Methods: This study is a retrospective monocentric cohort of first time implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis between 2008 and 2016 in a university hospital. 68 consecutive patients underwent this procedure performed by a single surgeon. These patients were dispatched into two groups: a group of the first 20 patients and a group of the 48 last patients. For each patient, multiple parameters were measured including: duration of surgery, per operative complications, post operative morbidity according to Clavien classification, length of stay, and functional satisfaction. Parameters were compared using Fisher or Wilcoxon tests., Results: Patients were on average 58.2 year old and average operating time was 87.7minutes. The average complication rate was 16.2%. Five patients from the first group and 3 patients from the second group presented a grade 3 post operative complication according to Clavien classification. The complications included 5 infections, one erosion, one irreductible paraphimosis and a prosthesis dysfunction. This difference was statistically significative (P=0.043). The average duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the second group (P=0.004). There was no significative difference concerning the satisfaction using the EDITS score (P=0.52) or a Likert scale (P=0.72)., Conclusion: In this monocentric and retrospective study, the learning curve for first time implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis is acquired after 20 surgeries. Specific training could lower this number, but needs further evaluation., Level of Evidence: 3., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Patients who are not responding to injectable and/or vacuum oral pharmacological treatments can receive a penile prosthesis. Three types of penile prostheses are used in France: rigid, semi-rigid and inflatable prostheses 3-piece or 2-piece. We have assessed the National surgical insertion practices between 2006 and 2013 (number of prostheses insertions, types, procedure locations, number of surgeons and distribution [public or private sectors])., Materials and Methods: Data analysis from the French Technical Agency of Information on Hospitals (ATIH) (2006-2013) using the common classification of medical acts (CCAM) and after code extractions related to this surgery (JHLA002, JHLA003, JHLA004)., Results: Between 2006 and 2013, the number of penile implants in France doubled (307 to 633), inflatable penile prostheses with an extracavernous component remained the most frequently used (87 %) (228 to 552) (+142 %). The use of semi-rigid prostheses declined by 26.7 %. The distribution between the private and public sector was close to 1 in 2013. More than half of French penile prostheses were implanted in three regions (Île-de-France, Languedoc-Roussillon, Rhône-Alpes). Nearly 62 % of surgeons implanted only one or two three-compartment prostheses in 2013., Conclusion: The number of penile prostheses in France doubled between 2006 and 2013. Three regions were particularly active as far as this surgery is concerned (Île-de-France, Languedoc-Roussillon, Rhône-Alpes). They were boosted by 5 surgeons with more than 20 prostheses surgeries a year., Level of Evidence: 4., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In the absence of practice recommendations, it was realized a review of the literature to establish the epidemiological and bacteriological data, prevention of infection, therapeutic attitude according to the clinical situation as well as the future prospects about the infections of penile prostheses., Methods: A systematic review of the scientific literature was realized by the base of Pubmed data (http://www.ncbi.nim.gov/pubmed/). The literature search was made between 1992 and 2014 using the keywords: penile prostheses, penile implant, infection. The article was developed according to the recommendations Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses 2009 (Prisma)., Results: The analysis of 10 meta-analysis and series published in various expert centers allowed us to synthesize the care recommended at present. Coagulasse négative staphylococcus were germs most frequently persons in charge but variations are secondarily observed in the current practices. The physiopathological knowledge (biofilm and risk factors) allowed to develop the antibiotic antibioprophylaxis, the precautionary measures of the infection of the operating site, the design of prostheses antimicrobial-impregnated or antibiotic-dipped and meticulous surgical technique ("Wash-Out", "No Touch"). In case of real infection, it was recommended in the absence of contra-indication to realize immediate salvage procedure allowing to set up a new penile prostheses, so avoiding the penile fibrosis., Conclusion: All these measures have induced a decrease of the infection of penile implants significantly as well in case of primary implantation as of surgical revision. The future perspectives aim at preventing the infection by inhibition of the formation of the biofilm and by a more effective action of antibiotics about germs which it contains; or to use devices intrapenile "spacer" when the immediate salvage procedure is not feasible to facilitate the next implantation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Copyright of Proges en Urologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To evaluate satisfaction rates and results in patients with penile prosthesis (5 PP)., Materials and Methods: From January 2000 till 2009, 50 patients with organic erectile dysfunction (ED) were implanted with hydraulics penile prosthesis by the same surgeon. Medical records were collected retrospectively. We analysed demographic characteristics, type of prosthesis used, per- and postoperative complications, prosthesis explantations and satisfaction rate measured by EDITS modified., Results: Mean age of patients was 60.2 ± 8.46 years (35-75). Thirty implanted patients (60%) were diabetics. We used a peno-scrotal incision in all patients. Three types of prosthesis were used; AMS Ambicor, AMS 700, Titan OTR. A bi-compartment and three-compartment prosthesis were implanted respectively in 24 and 26 patients. The prosthesis was retrieved in two patients secondary to a mechanical failure, in three patients for prosthesis erosion, in two patients for prosthesis infection. In four out of the seven explanted patients, a second prosthesis was implanted. The EDITS questionnary was realized by telephonic interview in 47 patients after a mean follow-up of 45 months (5-114). The response rate was of 83%. The satisfaction rate was of 81%., Conclusion: In our series, the satisfaction rate was better for the three-compartment prosthesis. After 45 months of follow-up, 73% (31/42) of patients had a functional prosthesis. The non-satisfaction most frequently found were patients who have complications as sepsis; mechanical failure, and prosthesis erosion, and subjective feeling of penile length reduction., (Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)