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










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Urol Clin North Am ; 49(1): 175-184, 2022 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34776050

RESUMEN

Over the past decade, there have been several advancements in the technologies available to treatment erectile dysfunction and Peyronie's disease. Vacuum erection devices, penile traction devices, low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy, and penile prosthesis surgery have evolved and are changing the way we treat men's health. Although significant improvements have been made, further work is needed to standardize treatment, create universal algorithms for technological applications, and simply their use.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil/terapia , Induración Peniana/terapia , Prótesis de Pene , Terapia Combinada , Tratamiento con Ondas de Choque Extracorpóreas , Humanos , Masculino , Colagenasa Microbiana/uso terapéutico , Implantación de Pene , Tracción , Vacio
2.
Can Urol Assoc J ; 16(2): 42-46, 2022 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34582341

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is the gold standard treatment for medically refractory erectile dysfunction. New chronic pain after IPP implantation is rarely discussed and the optimal treatment is unclear. We evaluated whether IPP re-operation for a primary indication of chronic pain improves patients' symptoms. Our secondary aim was to explore factors associated with resolution or persistence of pain after IPP reoperation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 315 patients who had an IPP revision or explantation at two high-volume prosthetic centers between May 2007 and May 2017. We excluded patients who had device malfunction, pain for <2 months, pain associated with infection or erosion, and patients without long-term followup data. Persistent pain was diagnosed based on patient self-report. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients met our criteria for having undergone a surgical revision (n=18) or explantation (n=13) for pain relief. Eighteen (58%) patients had persistent pain despite surgical intervention. Only patients who had pain secondary to a device malposition improved after re-operation (n=13). A prior diagnosis of a chronic pain syndrome was associated with persistent pain despite intervention. Pain improvement was not associated with age, comorbid conditions, duration of implant, or the number of surgical revisions performed. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical intervention for chronic penile prosthesis pain is unlikely to relieve symptoms, particularly for patients with chronic pain disorders. Patients should be counselled that IPP reoperative procedures as a treatment for pain should be avoided unless the device is identified to be malpositioned, and consideration of alternative therapeutic options may be more beneficial.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA