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.

Long-term outcomes of AMS Spectra® penile prosthesis implantation and satisfaction rates

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 29, pages 184–188 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical implantation techniques of AMS Spectra malleable penile prosthesis, its intraoperative and postoperative complications, and the rates of patient and partner satisfaction. Forty-six patients on whom AMS Spectra malleable penile prosthesis implantation was performed between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively examined. Any complications seen intraoperatively and postoperatively were determined. International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-5, total IIEF erectile function domain scores were calculated preoperatively. IIEF-5, total IIEF erectile function domain and Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) scores were calculated in the postoperative third, sixth and twelfth months. The mean age of the patients was 63.6±7.28 (38–80) years. The mean erectile dysfunction period was 4.29±2.51 years, and the mean follow-up period was 3.19±1.6 years. The mean IIEF-5 score was 5.86±0.92 before surgery, and it was 22.5±0.62 at the end of the follow-up. The mean total IIEF erectile function domain score was 6.02±1.09 before surgery, and it was 26.02±0.21 at the end of the follow-up. The mean EDITS score was 71.06±3.16 at the end of the follow-up. The mean EDITS score of the patients partners was 65.08±4.34 at the end of the follow-up. The overall satisfaction rates were 96.2% for the patients and 84.6% for the partners. As a result of this study, the AMS Spectra penile prosthesis implantation is an effective, reliable and economic method. It can be used in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in selected patient groups offering high patient and partner satisfaction rates.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

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

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Evans C . The use of penile prostheses in the treatment of impotence. Br J Urol 1998; 81: 591–598.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wespes E, Amar E, Hatzichristou D, Hatzimouratidis K, Montorsi F, Pryor J et al. EAU Guidelines on erectile dysfunction: an update. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 806–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mulcahy JJ, Austoni E, Barada JH, Choi HK, Hellstrom WJ, Krishnamurti S et al. The penile implant for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2004; 1: 98–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW . Management of erectile impotence : use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology 1973; 2: 80–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Small MP, Carrion HM, Gordon JA . Small-Carrion penile prosthesis. New implant for management of impotence,1975. J Urol 2002; 167: 1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, Palazzo S, Saracino GA, Martino P et al. Penile prostheses. Ther Adv Urol 2010; 2: 35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Atienza Merino G . Penile prosthesis for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Actas Urol Esp 2006; 30: 159–169.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A . The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile function. Urology 1997; 49: 822–830.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lue TF . Erectile dysfunction. New Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1802–1813.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Montague DK, Jarow JP, Broderick GA, Dmochowski RR, Heaton JP, Lue TF et al. Erectile dysfunction guideline update panel. Chapter I:The management of erectile dysfunction: an AUA update. J Urol 2005; 174: 230–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, Krane RJ, McKinlay JB . Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates:results of the Massachusets Male Aging Study. J Urol 1994; 151: 54–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaneko S, Mizunaga M, Yachiku S, Yamaguchi O, Omata S . Clinical applicability of a new tactile sensor for evaluating rigidity of the penis: a comparative study with Rigiscan. Int J Urol 1996; 3: 379–382.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hatzimouratidis K, Hatzichristou DG . Treatment options for erectile dysfunction in patients failing oral drug therapy. EAU Updates Ser 2004; 2: 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Meuleman EJ, Mulders PF . Erectile function after radical prostatectomy: a review. Eur Urol 2003; 43: 95–101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, Lucarelli G, Palazzo S, Battaglia M et al. Patient and partner satisfaction after AMS inflatable prostheses implant. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 304–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Adrianne R, Balde S, De Leval J, Kempeners P, Mormont C . Penile prosthesis in case of impotence:12 years of clinical experience. Acta Urol Belg 1995; 63: 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kaufmann JJ, Lindner A, Raz S . Complications of penile prosthesis surgery for impotence. J Urol 1982; 128: 1192–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ferguson KH, Cespedes RD . Prospective long-term results and quality-of-life assessment after Dura-II penile prosthesis placement. Urology 2003; 61: 437–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Xin ZC, Guo YL, Choi HK . A retrospective study of 548 cases of erectile dysfunction treated by penile prosthesis implantation. Chin J Urol 2005; 21: 755–757.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hisasue S, Sato Y, Horita H, Adachi H, Suzuki N, Kato R et al. Erosion of a penile prosthesis due toan indwelling urethral catheter as a late complication. Int J Urol 2002; 9: 525–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fathy A, Shamloul R, AbdelRahim A, Zeidan A, El-Dakhly, Ghanem H . Experience with Tube (Promedon) malleable penile implant. Urol Int 2007; 79: 244–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

  25. Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, Barbieri L, Maga T, Rigatti P, Graziottin A et alAMS 700 CX inflatable penile implants for Peyronie’s diseases: functional results, morbidity and patient-partner satisfactionInt J Impot Res 1996; 8: 81–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, Lucarelli G, Palazzo S, Battaglia M et al. Patient and partner satisfaction after AMS inflatable penile prosthesis implant. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 304–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

  28. Jin Z, Zhu YC, Cui WS, Liu T, Li WR, Yuan YM et al. Clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment of severe erectile dysfunction. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao 2010; 42: 413–417.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Menard J, Tremeaux JC, Faix A, Staerman F . Penile protheses multicentre practice evaluation, results after 282 procedures. Prog Urol 2007; 17: 229–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, Levine LA . Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol 2007; 177: 262–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Benson RC Jr, Patterson DE, Barrett DM . Long-term results with the Jonas malleable penile prosthesis. J Urol 1985; 134: 899–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim YD, Yang SO, Lee JK, Jung TY, Shim HB . Usefulness of a malleable penile prosthesis in patients with a spinal cord injury. Int J Urol 2008; 15: 919–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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 

  34. Kraus DJ, Lantinga LJ, Carey MP, Meisler AW, Kelly CM . Use of the malleable penile prosthesis in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: a prospective study of postoperative adjustment. J Urol 1989; 142: 988–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, Bergamaschi F, Rigatti P . Patient-partner satisfaction with semirigid penile prostheses for Peyronie's disease: a 5-year followup study. J Urol 1993; 150: 1819–1821.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kearse WS, Sago AL, Peretsman SJ, Bolton JO, Holcomb RG, Reddy PK et al. “Report of a multicenter clinical evaluation of the dura-II penile prosthesis”. J Urol 1996; 155: 1613–1616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Ankara Atatürk Teaching and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    F Akdemir & E Okulu

  2. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, Turkey

    Ö Kayıgil

Authors
  1. F Akdemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E Okulu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ö Kayıgil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F Akdemir.

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

Akdemir, F., Okulu, E. & Kayıgil, Ö. Long-term outcomes of AMS Spectra® penile prosthesis implantation and satisfaction rates. Int J Impot Res 29, 184–188 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2017.16

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2017.16

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links