Get access

Penile Implantation in Europe: Successes and Complications with 253 Implants in Italy and Germany

Authors

  • Alessandro Natali MD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Uro-Andrological Unit, Department of Urology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy;
      Alessandro Natali, MD, Uro-Andrological Unit, Department of Urology, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 18, 50139 Florence, Italy. Tel: +39 055417645; Fax: +39 0554377755; E-mail: anatali@dada.it
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Roberto Olianas MD,

    1. Städtisches Klinikum Lüneburg, Gemeinnützige GmbH, Lüneburg, Germany;
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Margit Fisch MD

    1. General Hospital Hamburg, Department of Urology and Pediatrics, Hamburg, Germany
    Search for more papers by this author

Alessandro Natali, MD, Uro-Andrological Unit, Department of Urology, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 18, 50139 Florence, Italy. Tel: +39 055417645; Fax: +39 0554377755; E-mail: anatali@dada.it

ABSTRACT

Introduction.  Results for prosthesis implantation from everyday clinical practice within Europe are few. This report provides data on the most commonly used penile prostheses (the American Medical Systems [AMS] series).

Aim.  The study aimed to assess, retrospectively, complications and patient satisfaction with AMS penile implants in 253 consecutive patients with erectile dysfunction from three European centers.

Methods.  Pre, intra- and postoperative data were obtained from chart review, with a mean follow-up of 60 months; 200 patients were available for evaluation. Patient satisfaction data were collected using the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire.

Main Outcome Measure.  Complications and patient satisfaction were assessed. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a standardized assessment tool (the modified EDITS questionnaire).

Results.  Major postoperative complications occurred in 40 (20%) patients, including 9 (22.5%) prosthesis infections, 18 (45%) mechanical failures, and 13 (32.5%) erosions. Patient satisfaction with the AMS 700CX, AMS Ambicor, and AMS 600-650 was 97%, 81%, and 75%, respectively; dissatisfaction was 0%, 5%, and 6%, respectively. Partner satisfaction with the AMS 700CX, AMS Ambicor, and AMS 600-650 was 91%, 91%, and 75%, respectively; dissatisfaction was 0%, 5%, and 6%, respectively. Erections were more natural (harder) than before with the AMS 700CX, AMS Ambicor, and AMS 600-650 in 91%, 85%, and 88%, respectively; hardness was the same as before in 9%, 15%, and 13%, respectively; no erections were less hard than before.

Conclusions.  Postoperative complications differed from those reported in the literature, while patient satisfaction rates were roughly similar. The reporting of specific data for different implant types, plus the use of standardized assessment tools for patient satisfaction is significant as in the future, it will allow comparison of data between centers performing penile prosthesis implants using these devices. Natali A, Olianas R, and Fisch M. Penile implantation in Europe: Successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany. J Sex Med 2008;5:1503–1512.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary