A prospective study analyzing both inflation and deflation preference for commonly available inflatable penile prostheses

Abstract

Despite popularity, satisfaction rates of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) use can be improved by evaluating the ability to operate devices in the preoperative setting. The purpose of this study was to prospectively analyze the preference of three commonly available IPPs. In total, 125 IPP-naïve men 60 years of age or older were prospectively recruited from an outpatient Urology clinic from June 2019 to January 2020. A questionnaire standardized to all encounters was utilized to collect demographics, selected medical information, and key pinch strength. Participants were then asked to rank three models in terms of preference (from 1 to 3, 1 representing most preferred) for each inflation and deflation in a double-blinded manner. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, a Chi-square test and multivariable logistical regression analysis. The results demonstrated preference for Coloplast Titan (44%) for inflation, and preference for AMS 700 (40%) for deflation. Men who preferred the Coloplast Titan inflation had a lower chance of preferring the AMS 700 MS deflation (OR = 0.29; p = 0.010) and Coloplast Titan Touch deflation (OR = 0.27; p = 0.012). Preference for Coloplast Titan was weakly associated with participant history of coronary artery disease (OR = 5.96, p = 0.006) and osteoarthritis (OR = 3.04, p = 0.044). Neither key pinch strength nor age was associated with preference for a particular model. IPP-naïve men over 60 years favor Coloplast Titan for inflation and AMS 700 for deflation, and men who preferred the Coloplast Titan for inflation were less likely to choose the AMS 700 MS or Coloplast Titan Touch for deflation. Further studies should aim to confirm these findings.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) teaching model.
Fig. 2: Measuring key pinch strength.
Fig. 3: Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) models.

References

  1. 1.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lee DJ, Najari BB, Davison WL, Al Awamlh BAH, Zhao F, Paduch DA, et al. Trends in the utilization of penile prostheses in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in the United States. J Sex Med. 2015;12:1638–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Burnett AL, Nehra A, Breau RH, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, et al. Erectile dysfunction: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2018;200:633–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE. Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. AMS 700CX Study Group. J Urol. 2000;164:376–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Montorsi F, Rigatti P, Carmignani G, Corbu C, Campo B, Ordesi G, et al. AMS three-piece inflatable implants for erectile dysfunction: a long-term multi-institutional study in 200 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2000;37:50–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ehlers M, McCormick B, Coward RM, Figler BD. Innovating incrementally: development of the modern inflatable penile prosthesis. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pastuszak AW, Lentz AC, Farooq A, Jones L, Bella AJ. Technological improvements in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis design over the past 40 years. J Sex Med. 2015;12:415–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Polanczyk CA, Marcantonio E, Goldman L, Rohde LE, Orav J, Mangione CM, et al. Impact of age on perioperative complications and length of stay in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:637–43.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Brennan MS, Barlotta RM, Simhan J. Frailty assessments in surgical practice: what is frailty and how can it be used in prosthetic health? Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:302–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lokeshwar SD, Bitran J, Madhusoodanan V, Kava B, Ramasamy R. A surgeon’s guide to the various antibiotic dips available during penile prosthesis implantation. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mirheydar HS, Palazzi KL, Parsons JK, Chang D, Hsieh TC. Hospital‐based trends in penile prosthetic surgery. J Sex Med. 2015;12:1092–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Masterson JM, Horodyski L, Patel R, Kineish O, Kohn TP, Ramasamy R. Impact of key pinch strength on patient preference for inflatable penile prosthesis: a prospective study comparing Coloplast™ and AMS™ models. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:113–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Norman K, Stobäus N, Gonzalez MC, Schulzke J-D, Pirlich M. Hand grip strength: Outcome predictor and marker of nutritional status. Clin Nutr. 2011;30:135–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Rodriguez KM, Kohn TP, Davis AB, Hakky TS. Penile implants: a look into the future. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(Suppl 5):S860–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Mathiowetz V, Kashman N, Volland G, Weber K, Dowe M, Rogers S. Grip and pinch strength: normative data for adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985;66:69–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Wallen JJ, Barrera EV, Ge L, Pastuszak AW, Carrion RE, Perito PE, et al. Biomechanical comparison of inflatable penile implants: a cadaveric pilot study. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1034–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Thirumavalavan N, Cordon BH, Gross MS, Taylor J, Eid JF. Rear tip extenders and penile prosthesis rigidity: a laboratory study of coloplast prostheses. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1030–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Scovell JM, Ge L, Barrera EV, Wilson SK, Carrion RE, Hakky TS. Longitudinal and horizontal load testing of inflatable penile implant cylinders of two manufacturers: an ex vivo demonstration of inflated rigidity. J Sex Med. 2016;13:1750–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge both AMS and Coloplast for their provision of the inflatable penile prosthesis models that were utilized in this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinayak Madhusoodanan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

RR is a consultant and grant recipient for both AMS and Coloplast.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Madhusoodanan, V., Best, J., Kalahasty, K. et al. A prospective study analyzing both inflation and deflation preference for commonly available inflatable penile prostheses. Int J Impot Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0339-0

Download citation

Search