World Journal of Urology

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 173–177 | Cite as

Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction rates among elderly male aged ≥75 years with inflatable penile prosthesis implant for medically refractory erectile dysfunction

  • Eric Chung
  • Matt Solomon
  • Ling DeYoung
  • Gerald B. Brock
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to assess the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction rate between men aged under and over 75 years who underwent inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation.

Methods and materials

A retrospective review of clinical database and follow-up independent telephone survey was undertaken in all men who underwent first-time IPP implantation between January 2006 and November 2010. Patient demographics, surgical outcomes, and patient satisfaction rate using Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) scores were recorded.

Results

A total of 216 first-time IPP were implanted. Of these, 30 patients were aged ≥75 years. In men aged ≥75 years, 3 patients had IPP revision surgery for mechanical malfunction (average 18.6 months; 12–24 months). While the 2-year Kaplan–Meier estimates of mechanical survival showed better outcome in men aged ≥75 years than men aged <75 years (95 vs. 92 %; p = 0.38), there was no difference in the IPP mechanical survival between the 2 groups at 3 years follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in the ease of IPP use, and EDITS scores among the two groups. The majority of men were satisfied and would recommend the IPP surgery to other men.

Conclusions

Men aged ≥75 years reported satisfactory outcome with IPP surgery with no statistical significant difference identified across device survival and satisfaction rates compared to men aged <75 years.

Keywords

Erectile dysfunction Penile prosthesis Men older than 75 years Elderly male Clinical outcome Patient satisfaction 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Travison TG, Sand MS, Rosen RC, Shabsigh R, Eardley I, McKinlay JB (2011) The natural progression and regression of erectile dysfunction: follow-up results form the MMAS and MALES studies. J Sex Med 8(7):1917–1924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corona G, Lee DM, Forti G, O’Connor DB, Maggi M, O’Neill TW et al (2010) Age-related changes in general and sexual health in middle-aged and older men: results from the European male ageing study (EMAS). J Sex Med 7:1362–1380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shiri R, Koskimaki J, Hakkinen J, Tammela TL, Huhtala H, Hakama M, Auvinen A (2004) Tampere ageing male urological study. Effects of age, comorbidity and lifestyle factors on erectile dysfunction: tampere ageing male urological study (TAMUS). Eur Urol 45(5):628–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hellstrom WJG, Montague DK, Moncada I, Carson C, Minhas S, Faria G, Krishnamurti S (2010) Implants, mechanical devices and vascular surgery for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 7:501–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henry GD (2009) Historical review of penile prosthesis design and surgical techniques: part 1 of a three-part review series on penile prosthetic surgery. J Sex Med 6(3):675–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith LJ, Mulhall JP, Deveci S, Monaghan N, Reid MC (2007) Sex after seventy: a pilot study of sexual function in older persons. J Sex Med 4(5):1247–1253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Villarreal HG, Jones LR (2012) Outcomes of and satisfaction with the inflatable penile prosthesis in the elderly male. Adv Urol 2012:240963PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis CM, Yarber WL, Bauserman RB et al (1998) Handbook of sexuality-related measures, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brinkman MJO, Henry GD, Wilson SK et al (2005) A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses for satisfaction. J Urol 174:253–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Althof SE, Corty ED, Levine SB et al (1999) EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments fir erectile dysfunction. Urology 53:793–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindau ST, Schumm LP, Launmann EO, Levinson W, O’Muircheartaigh CA, Waite LJ (2007) A study of sexuality and health among older adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 357(8):762–774PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Araujo AB, Mohr BA, McKinlay JB (2004) Changes in sexual function in middle-aged and older men: longitudinal data from the Massachusetts male aging study. J Am Geriatr Soc 52(9):1502–1509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A (2001) Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol 166(3):932–937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akin-Olugbade O, Parker M, Guhring P, Mulhall J (2006) Determinants of patient satisfaction following penile prosthesis surgery. J Sex Med 3:743–748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al-Najar A, Naumann CM, Kaufmann S, Steinbach-Jensch A, Hamann MF, Junemann KP, van der Horst C (2009) Should being aged over 70 years hinder penile prosthesis implantation? BJU Int 104:834–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montague DK (2007) Penile prosthesis implantation: size matters. Eur Urol 51:887–888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA (2007) Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2,384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med 4:1074–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henry GD, Brinkman MJ, Mead SF, Delk JR 2nd, Cleves MA, Jennermann C, Wilson SK, Kramer AC (2012) A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses: assessment of timing and frequency of intercourse and analysis of implant durability. J Sex Med 9(6):1715–1721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB et al (1999) Development of questionnaire for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction (EDITS). Urology 53(4):793–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Chung
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matt Solomon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ling DeYoung
    • 1
  • Gerald B. Brock
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of UrologySt Joseph’s Health CareLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of UrologyPrincess Alexandra Hospital and St Andrew’s War Memorial HospitalBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations