Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Asian J Androl ; 26(4): 344-348, 2024 Jul 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38445952

RESUMEN

Previous published studies have shown an improvement of penile hemodynamic parameters after low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (Li-ESWT). However, the clinical significance of these findings remains unclear, and definitive selection criteria for Li-ESWT based on preexisting comorbidities have yet to be established. This was an observational study of 113 patients with ED, evaluated between January 2019 and December 2021 in Andrology Unit at the Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, University of Foggia (Foggia, Italy). Penile dynamic Doppler was performed to evaluate vascular parameters and 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Dysfunction (IIEF-5) questionnaire was administered to assess the severity of ED. This was repeated 1 month after treatment. Patients with a peak systolic velocity (PSV) <30 cm s -1 were considered eligible for Li-ESWT. Our protocol consisted of 8 weekly sessions with 1500 strokes distributed in 5 different locations along the penis. After treatment, a significant mean (±standard deviation [s.d.]) PSV increase of 5.0 (±3.4) cm s -1 was recorded and 52/113 (46.0%) patients reached a PSV >30 cm s -1 at posttherapeutic penile dynamic Doppler. A clinically significant IIEF-5 score improvement was observed in 7 patients, 21 patients, and 2 patients with mild-to-moderate, moderate, and severe pretreatment ED, respectively. No different outcomes were assessed based on smoking habits, previous pelvic surgery, or use of oral phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor (PDE5i). On the other side, only 1 (6.7%) in 15 patients with diabetes mellitus showed an IIEF-5 score improvement after Li-ESWT. Shockwave treatment determined a significant increase in PSV and correlated IIEF-5 improvement in ED patients. This advantage seemed particularly evident for moderate ED and was not affected by smoking habits, previous pelvic surgery, and use of PDE5i. Conversely, diabetic patients did not benefit from the treatment.


Asunto(s)
Tratamiento con Ondas de Choque Extracorpóreas , Impotencia Vasculogénica , Pene , Humanos , Masculino , Tratamiento con Ondas de Choque Extracorpóreas/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pene/irrigación sanguínea , Pene/diagnóstico por imagen , Impotencia Vasculogénica/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , Disfunción Eréctil/terapia , Disfunción Eréctil/etiología , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
Minerva Urol Nephrol ; 75(6): 711-717, 2023 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38126284

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Inflatable penile prosthesis are the definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction. The two most used surgical approaches to position the implants are the penoscrotal and the infrapubic. Current trends showed that the penoscrotal approach is extensively preferred however, there is not conclusive evidence demonstrating the superiority of one technique over the other. The aim of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence available and to underline strengths and weaknesses of the two techniques. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed to identify relevant published articles. The included studies had to explicitly examine the use of three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis with a focus on the surgical access method and complications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-six articles were included in the review: seven narrative reviews, five retrospective observational studies, five prospective observational studies, and nine mixed methodology studies. The most frequent approach was the penoscrotal, which was also found more comfortable (RG1) by the operators in one study. The infrapubic approach lasts less and one study demonstrated higher satisfaction by the patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of significant differences in complications among the penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches. While the infrapubic approach is faster and patients were more satisfied, the penoscrotal approach is the most used by far. This is likely related to the more straightforward procedure through this access and the excellent surgical field exposure. For these reasons, it is also preferred in the most complex cases.


Asunto(s)
Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Satisfacción del Paciente , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Pene/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA