PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16422990

The penile implant for erectile dysfunction.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Penile prostheses, introduced as the first effective organic treatment for erectile dysfunction over three decades ago, have an important role in the treatment of erectile dysfunction when other nonprosthetic treatment options have proven unsatisfactory. Although they are the least chosen and most invasive treatment option, they have the highest satisfaction rate of all available ED options and provide a predictable and reliable result. AIM: To provide recommendations/guidelines concerning state-of-the-art knowledge for utilization of the penile prosthesis in the management of men with erectile dysfunction. METHODS: An International Consultation in collaboration with the major sexual medicine associations assembled over 200 multidisciplinary experts from 60 countries into 17 committees. Committee members established specific objectives and scopes for various sexual medicine topics. The recommendations concerning state-of-the-art knowledge in the respective sexual medicine topic represent the opinion of experts from five continents developed in a process over a 2-year period. There were 10 experts from seven countries concerning the Penile Implant for Erectile Dysfunction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Expert opinion was based on grading of evidence-based medical literature, widespread internal committee discussion, public presentation and debate. RESULTS: Recommendations/guidelines for penile prosthesis (hydraulic, semi-rigid and soft silicone) insertion for management of men with erectile dysfunction were updated. Consensed issues included: criteria for patient selection, informed consent procedures, strategies for preoperative preparation, operative incisions/technical considerations and outcome results in terms of patient satisfaction and device survival. Updated information was reviewed concerning therapies for device failures, device insertion in scarred corporal bodies and strategies for managing implant infections. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for more research in developing management strategies for insertion of penile prostheses in men with ED.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John J Mulcahy, Edouardo Austoni, James H Barada, Hyung Ki Choi, W J Hellstrom, Wayne J G Hellstrom, Sudhakar Krishnamurti, Ignacio Moncada, Dirk Schultheiss, Dirk Shultheiss, Michael Sohn, Hunter Wessells. 2004. The penile implant for erectile dysfunction.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2004.10115.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT.

When homeopathy is tested in clinical trials, understanding and appraisal is likely to be improved if published reports contain details of prescribing strategies and treatments. An international Delphi panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines for reporting homeopathic methods and treatments. The panel agreed 28 treatment- and provider-specific items that supplement the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement items 2, 3, 4 and 19. The authors recommend these for adoption by authors and journals when reporting trials of homeopathy.

Consensus↗

Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines for newborns at a Copenhagen University Hospital - a cross-sectional study.

AIM: To assess the agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines of a University Neonatology Department, to evaluate the reasons for potential disagreements and to ascertain whether Cochrane reviews were considered for the guidelines development. METHODS: The recommendations in the reviews and guidelines were compared and classified as being in 'agreement', 'partial agreement' or 'disagreement'. The guideline authors were interviewed for reasons about disagreement and whether Cochrane reviews were considered during the guideline development. RESULTS: Agreement between reviews and guidelines was found for 133 interventions (77%), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) and disagreement for nine interventions (5%). Six interventions were recommended in the guidelines, but not in the reviews. Three interventions were recommended in the reviews, but not in the guidelines. Use of consensus statements, evidence on surrogate markers, observational studies, basic immunology and pathophysiological knowledge, expert opinion, economical constraints, reservations about the external validity and unawareness of reviews were reasons for disagreement. Cochrane reviews were rarely (22%) used during the guideline development. CONCLUSION: We found agreement between more than three quarters of Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines. However, few important disagreements occurred. Reviews were only used for guideline development in about a fifth of cases.

Consensus↗