Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Satisfaction assessment with malleable prosthetic implant of Spectra (AMS) and Genesis (Coloplast) models

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 28, pages 228–233 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The malleable prosthetic implant is widely accepted among patients and physicians owing to a lower degree of surgical complexity, its rare mechanic failures and lower cost. We have compared the degree of satisfaction with malleable prosthetic implant in 60 patients, 36 with Spectra (AMS) and 24 with Genesis (Coloplast). For assessment purposes, we implemented the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) satisfaction questionnaire adapted for penile prosthetic implants. The mean age and follow-up was 61.7 years (31–82) and 19.9 months (1–61), respectively. Mean EDITS scores did not indicate superiority of one implant over the other, overall satisfaction index being 77.1% and 75.6% for Genesis and Spectra prosthesis, respectively (P=0.4970). Our results revealed that these two models of malleable prostheses present a high level of satisfaction and confirm that the malleable prosthetic implant is an excellent option to treat patients with ED refractory to medical treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Montorsi F, Adaikan G, Becher E, Giuliano F, Khoury S, Lue TF et al. Summary of the recommendations on sexual dysfunctions in men. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 3572–3588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vitarelli A, Divenuto L, Fortunato F, Falco A, Pagliarulo V, Antonini G et al. Long term patient satisfaction and quality of life with AMS700CX inflatable penile prosthesis. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2013; 85: 133–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rajpurkar A, Dhabuwala CB . Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with Sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice. J Urol 2003; 170: 159–163.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Martinez DR, Terlecki R, Brant W . The evolution and utility of the Small-Carrion prosthesis, its impact, and progression to the modern-day malleable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med 2015; 12 (Suppl 7): 423–430.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bertero EB, Antunes D . Surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction. Sex Med Rev 2015; 3: 316–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Habous M . Malleable (semi-rigid) penile prosthesis. Surgical techniques. J Sex Med 2015; 12: 1984–1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilson SK, Cleves M, Delk JR 2nd . Long term results with Hydroflex and Dynaflex penile prostheses: device survival comparison to multicomponent inflatables. J Urol 1996; 5: 1621–1623.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bernal RM, Henry GD . Contemporary patient satisfaction rates for three-piece inflatable penile prostheses. Adv Urol 2012; 2012: 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, Levine F, Burnett AL . EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology 1999; 53: 793–799.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Levine L, Estrada C, Morgentaler A . Mechanical reliability and safety of and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol 2001; 166: 932–937.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Trost LW, Baum N, Hellstrom WJ . Managing the difficult penile prosthesis patient. J Sex Med 2013; 10: 893–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carvalheira A, Santana R, Pereira N . 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Salama N . Satisfaction with the malleable penile prosthesis among couples from the Middle East: is it different from that reported elsewhere? Int J Impot Res 2004; 16: 175–180.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Falcone M, Rolle L, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Sedigh O, Preto M et al. Prospective analysis of the surgical outcomes and patients’ satisfaction rate after the AMS Spectra penile prosthesis implantation. Urology 2013; 82: 373–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Al Ansari A, Talib R, Canguven O, Shamsodini A . Axial penile rigidity influences patient and partner satisfaction after penile prosthesis implantation. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2013; 85: 138–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mulhall JP, Ahmed A, Branch J, Parker M . Serial assessment of efficacy and satisfaction profiles following penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol 2003; 169: 1429–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd . A new treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol 1994; 152: 1121–1123.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. División Urología, Hospital Durand, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    A R Casabé, N Sarotto, C Gutierrez & A J Bechara

  2. IME, Instituto Médico Especializado, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    A R Casabé & A J Bechara

Authors
  1. A R Casabé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N Sarotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C Gutierrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A J Bechara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A R Casabé.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Casabé, A., Sarotto, N., Gutierrez, C. et al. Satisfaction assessment with malleable prosthetic implant of Spectra (AMS) and Genesis (Coloplast) models. Int J Impot Res 28, 228–233 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2016.33

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2016.33

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links