Yiou R, Binhas M. Combined Implantation of a Penile Prosthesis and Adjustable Continence Therapy ProACT in Patients with Erectile Dysfunction and Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy: Results of a Prospective Pilot Study.
J Sex Med 2015;
12:2481-4. [PMID:
26611356 DOI:
10.1111/jsm.13059]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
The treatment of postradical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction (post-RP-ED) and stress urinary incontinence (post-RP-SUI) may require the combined implantation of a penile prosthesis and incontinence surgery. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding which incontinence surgery should be associated with a penile implant.
AIMS
To evaluate the combined implantation of a penile prosthesis and the adjustable continence therapy ProACT in patients with post-RP-ED and post-RP-SUI.
METHODS
We implanted the ProACT device and a penile prosthesis synchronously (n = 6) and asynchronously (n = 4) in 10 patients with moderate post-RP-SUI and severe post-RP-ED. We evaluated the effects on urinary incontinence using the ICIQ and PGI-I scores and pad use. We evaluated the effect on sexual function using the EHS and Global Assessment Questionnaire (GAQ), and we evaluated satisfaction with the penile prosthesis on a 5-point scale. Postoperative pain associated with each procedure was evaluated by a numeric rating scale.
RESULTS
No cases of urinary retention or prosthesis infection were observed. Postoperative pain was mainly related to penile prosthesis implantation. After a mean follow-up of 22.7 ± 20.9 months (range: 6-53), significant improvements of the ICIQ score (15.3 ± 3.7 vs. 4.7 ± 2.3, P < 0.001) and pad use per day (2.8 ± 1.2 vs. 0.3 ± 0.5, P < 0.001) were observed compared with baseline. According to the PGI-I questionnaire, eight patients described a very much improved (n = 6) or much improved (n = 2) urinary condition. All patients declared an EHS = 4 with the use of penile prosthesis; all patients were very satisfied (n = 6) or satisfied (n = 4) with their penile prosthesis. All patients answered the GAQ positively.
CONCLUSION
The combined implantation of a Pro-ACT device and penile prosthesis represents a feasible therapeutic option in patients with post-RP-SUI and post-RP-ED. The absence of postoperative pain associated with the ProACT procedure may represent the main interest in this therapy.
Collapse