PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3712565

Experience with the Mentor inflatable penile prosthesis.

R M Engel·J K Smolev·R Hackler
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We present our experience with the new Mentor inflatable penile prosthesis for the treatment of organic impotence. Technical complications requiring frequent revision of the most commonly used inflatable prosthesis have led to the development of a new device, which we have used in 116 patients. This hydraulic device provides excellent functional qualities. No connector separations, aneurysms or ruptures have been encountered. Reoperations became necessary in 10.5 per cent of the patients. Cosmetic and functional results were good, and patient acceptance has been excellent.

Explore related subjects

Erectile DysfunctionFollow-Up StudiesHumansMalePenisProstheses and ImplantsProsthesis DesignReoperationJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R M Engel, J K Smolev, R Hackler. 1986. Experience with the Mentor inflatable penile prosthesis.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)46030-7

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

[Short history of erectile dysfunction treatment].

Since the origin, the man tried by all possible means to restor his erectile capacity. The obscurantism prevailed for a long time. We had to wait up to the turn of the 19th Century with Freud to get that things evolve a little bit. In the Fifties, the first penile prostheses were developed by Goodwin and Scott. In the Sixties, the behavioral therapies by Masters and Johnson. The Eighties represent the pharmacological revolution with the discovery of the effects of papaverin by Virag, then the E1 prostaglandin by Ishii, as well as the inhibitors of the 5 phospho di esterase (sildenafil, vardenafil, tadalafil) following studies on nitric oxide by Ignarro, Nobel Prize of medicine in 1998.

Erectile Dysfunction↗
PubMed2006

Self-reported volume of radical prostatectomies among urologists in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the variability in the volume of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RP) performed by urologists in the USA, and the physician characteristics that predict RP volume, as previous studies showed that individual surgeon volume for RP is associated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: In a nationwide, representative survey of 2000 urologists who treat prostate carcinoma in the USA, we asked respondents to indicate a numerical range of RPs they perform each year (none, 1-10, 11-30, and >30, the last which we defined as 'high volume'). We then identified characteristics of the provider and practice associated with a high volume of RPs. Supplementing survey results with other national data, we estimated the proportion of all RPs in the USA performed by 'high-volume' urologists. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 66.1% (1313 urologists) with no differences between the respondents and non-respondents for the measured demographic variables. Among urologists who performed RPs (89.1% of the sample), 37.3% did < or = 10, 46.9% 11-30 and 15.8% >30 RPs/year. Academic and urological oncology fellowship-trained urologists were, respectively, 41% and 27% more likely than private-practice and non-fellowship-trained urologists to have a high volume of RPs. Of all RPs performed yearly in the USA, only an estimated 46.1% were by high-volume urologists. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of urologists report a RP volume that might be associated with higher rates of cardiac, respiratory, vascular, wound-healing, and genitourinary complications. Further study is needed to characterize the possible relationships between RP volume and tumour recurrence, survival, and long-term erectile dysfunction and incontinence.

Erectile Dysfunction↗