https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12353
Efficacy and safety of malleable penile prosthesis compared to inflatable penile prosthesis in erectile dysfunction patients
Submitted: February 5, 2024
Accepted: March 24, 2024
Published: June 27, 2024
Accepted: March 24, 2024
Abstract Views: 739
PDF: 449
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Introduction: Erectile dysfunction can cause self-withdrawal and decreased quality of life. Patients who do not respond to pharmacological therapy and other conservative treatments are urged to undergo penile prosthesis implantation. Malleable penile prosthesis was the first prosthesis developed, but then inflatable penile prosthesis was developed to give a more natural erection. There is no meta-analysis comparing inflatable and malleable penile prostheses in terms of safety and efficacy. This study is conducted to evaluate patient and partner satisfaction, ease of use, mechanical failure, and infection rate in patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation.
Method: This meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocols. Five eligible studies were included from Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and SemanticScholar databases.
Result: In this study, patient and partner satisfaction are significantly better (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.66-6.93, p = 0.0008) (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.75-3.08, p < 0.00001). Mechanical failure is also significantly higher in inflatable penile prostheses (OR 5.60, 95% CI 2.02-15.53, p = 0.0009). There is no significant difference in terms of ease of use and infection rate in inflatable or malleable penile prostheses.
Conclusions: This study concluded that inflatable penile prosthesis is better in terms of patient and partner satisfaction, but mechanical failures occur more frequently in this type of prosthesis.
Shamloul R, Ghanem H. Erectile dysfunction. Lancet. 2013; 381:153-165.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60520-0
Birowo P, Deswanto IA, Rasyid N. Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction: A cross-sectional web-based survey conducted in an Indonesian national referral hospital, F1000Research. 2019; 8:817.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18930.1
Elterman DS, Bhattacharyya SK, Mafilios M, et al. The Quality of Life and Economic Burden of Erectile Dysfunction. Res Rep Urol. 2021; 13:79-86.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S283097
Droupy S, Colson MH. Assessment of a New Formulation of Sildenafil on Common Practice: An Observational Study. Int J Reprod Med. 2022; 2022:9122099.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9122099
Belew D, Klaassen Z, Lewis RW. Intracavernosal Injection for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: A Review. Sex Med Rev. 2015; 3:11-23.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smrj.35
Raina R, Nandipati KC, Agarwal A, et al. Combination therapy: medicated urethral system for erection enhances sexual satisfaction in sildenafil citrate failure following nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Androl. 2005; 26:757-760.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.05035
Lin H, Wang R. The science of vacuum erectile device in penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy. Transl Androl Urol. 2013; 2:61-66.
Vendeira P. Penile prosthesis surgery: Indications and penoscrotal approach. Implante de prótesis peneana: indicaciones y abordaje penoescrotal. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2020; 44:377-381.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2020.01.010
Cavayero CT, McIntosh GV. Penile Prosthesis Implantation. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
Polchert M, Dick B, Raheem O. Narrative review of penile prosthetic implant technology and surgical results, including transgender patients. Transl Androl Urol. 2021; 10:2629-2647.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1279
Wang VM, Levine LA. Safety and Efficacy of Inflatable Penile Prostheses for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: Evidence to Date. Med Devices (Auckl). 2022; 15:27-36.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S251364
Pang KH, Muneer A, Alnajjar HM. A systematic review of penile prosthesis insertion in patients with spinal cord injury. Sex Med Rev. 2022; 10:468-477.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.01.004
Li JZ, Maguire TA, Zou KH, et al. Prevalence, Comorbidities, and Risk Factors of Erectile Dysfunction: Results from a Prospective Real-World Study in the United Kingdom. Int J Clin Pract. 2022; 2022:5229702.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5229702
Muncey W, Sellke N, Kim T, et al. Alternative Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction: a Growing Arsenal in Men's Health. Curr Urol Rep. 2021; 22:11.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-01023-9
Hatzichristou D, Kirana PS, Banner L, et al. Diagnosing Sexual Dysfunction in Men and Women: Sexual History Taking and the Role of Symptom Scales and Questionnaires. J Sex Med. 2016; 13:1166-1182.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.05.017
Bayrak O, Erturhan S, Seckiner I, et al. Comparison of the patient's satisfaction underwent penile prosthesis; Malleable versus Ambicor: Single center experience. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 92:25-29.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.1.25
Kılıçarslan H, Kaynak Y, Gökcen K, et al. Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece inflatable penile prostheses. Turk J Urol. 2014; 40:207-210.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2014.37108
Jorissen C, De Bruyna H, Baten E, Van Renterghem K. Clinical Outcome: Patient and Partner Satisfaction after Penile Implant Surgery. Curr Urol. 2019; 13:94-100.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000499286
Vakalopoulos I, Kampantais S, Ioannidis S, et al. High patient satisfaction after inflatable penile prostheses implantation correlates with female partner satisfaction. J Sex Med. 2013; 10:2774-2781.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12311
Akin-Olugbade O, Parker M, Guhring P, Mulhall J. Determinants of patient satisfaction following penile prosthesis surgery. J Sex Med. 2006; 3:743-748.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00278.x
Carvalheira A, Santana R, Pereira NM. Why Are Men Satisfied or Dissatisfied with Penile Implants? A Mixed Method Study on Satisfaction with Penile Prosthesis Implantation. J Sex Med. 2015; 12:2474-2480.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.13054
Habous M. Malleable (Semi-Rigid) Penile Prosthesis (MPP). J Sex Med. 2015; 12:1984-1988.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12991
Bettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, et al. Patient and partner satisfaction after AMS inflatable penile prosthesis implant. J Sex Med. 2010; 7:304-9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01499.x
Braun AE, Swerdloff D, Sudhakar A, et al. Defining the incidence and management of postoperative scrotal hematoma after primary and complex three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Int J Impot Res. 2023:1-5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00697-2
Bartley J, Zimmerman WB, Dhabuwala CB. Inflatable penile prosthesis and salvage protocol for mechanical failure: is it really necessary? J Sex Med. 2012; 9:2175-2181.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02813.x
Natali A, Olianas R, Fisch M. Penile implantation in Europe: successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany. J Sex Med. 2008; 5:1503-1512.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00819.x
Smelser AM, VanDyke ME, Nealon SW, et al. Mechanical indications for inflatable penile prosthesis revision: analysis and implications for revision surgery. J Sex Med. 2023; 20:1044-1051.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdad064
Bertó RR, López-Acón JD, Marco SL, et al. Penile prosthesis: Patient satisfaction, use and preference for malleable vs inflatable. World J Clin Urol. 2014; 3:134-138
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5410/wjcu.v3.i2.134
Gon LM, de Campos CCC, Voris BRI, et al. A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role. BMC Urol. 2021; 21:35.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00730-2
Bernal RM, Henry GD. Contemporary patient satisfaction rates for three-piece inflatable penile prostheses. Adv Urol. 2012; 2012:707321.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/707321
Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1999; 53:793-799.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00582-2
Levine LA. Diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction. Am J Med. 2000; 109 Suppl 9A:3S-30S.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(00)00655-0
Çayan S, Ascı R, Efesoy O, et al. Comparison of Long-Term Results and Couples' Satisfaction with Penile Implant Types and Brands: Lessons Learned From 883 Patients With Erectile Dysfunction Who Underwent Penile Prosthesis Implantation. J Sex Med. 2019; 16:1092-1099.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.04.013
How to Cite
Satwikananda, H., Laksita, T. B., Djatisoesanto, W., & Soebadi, D. M. (2024). Efficacy and safety of malleable penile prosthesis compared to inflatable penile prosthesis in erectile dysfunction patients. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 96(2). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12353
Copyright (c) 2024 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Similar Articles
- Alexandre de Freitas Miranda, Bruno Lopes Cançado Machado, Penile prosthesis implant with bi-triangular excision and graft for surgical therapy of Peyronie’s disease: A case report , Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia: Vol. 87 No. 4 (2015)
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.