Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Systematic review of the implantation of penile prosthesis in major ambulatory surgery.
Torremadé, J; Presa, M; Gorría, Ó; de Burgos, R; Oyagüez, I; Lledó, E.
Afiliação
  • Torremadé J; Servicio de Urología, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Presa M; Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB), Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: mpresa@porib.com.
  • Gorría Ó; Unidad de Urología Reconstructiva y Andrología, Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Navarra, Pamplona. Spain.
  • de Burgos R; Health Economics & Market Access, Boston Scientific Iberia, Madrid, Spain.
  • Oyagüez I; Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB), Madrid, Spain.
  • Lledó E; Sección de Urología Funcional, Reconstructiva y Andrología, Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) ; 47(6): 341-350, 2023.
Article em En, Es | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36319559
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND

OBJECTIVE:

Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation is an effective option for erectile dysfunction. Although initially PP surgery was carried out in an inpatient setting, there is a growing trend to implant PP as a major ambulatory surgery (MAS). This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify available evidence of the implantation of PP under MAS setting and go carry out a comparison between MAS and inpatient procedures. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and MEDES electronic databases and non-indexed supplements for scientific congresses were searched to identify articles related to the surgical implantation of PP in MAS up to February 2021. Key search terms included penile prosthesis, erectile dysfunction, ambulatory surgery, ambulatory care, and surgery.

RESULTS:

Among 171 publications retrieved (51 PubMed, 73 EMBASE, 3 Cochrane, 2 using MEDES and 42 manual searching), 5 studies were finally selected. There were no significant differences between MAS or inpatient setting in terms of the type of device, surgical approach, or location of reservoir. Complication rates observed in both groups were similar. Implantation of PP in MAS was less expensive than inpatient surgery and was associated with acceptable patient satisfaction rates and adequate pain control.

CONCLUSIONS:

Studies demonstrated that outpatient PP surgery can achieve similar outcomes in terms of safety and satisfaction to implantation of PP in the inpatient setting, while it could reduce costs and improve the efficiency. This research could support decision makers to extend PP surgery into the ambulatory setting.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Prótese de Pênis / Implante Peniano / Disfunção Erétil Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En / Es Revista: Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Prótese de Pênis / Implante Peniano / Disfunção Erétil Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En / Es Revista: Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article