Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the longterm mechanical reliability of AMS (American Medical Systems) three–piece inflatable implants and their impact on patient–partner satisfaction in 200 consecutive patients with erectile dysfunction who underwent surgery in five different institutions.Methods: Patient charts included in the study were collected and extensively assessed to record pre– and intraoperative data and postoperative complications. All patients and 120 partners were then seen often in the office at a mean follow–up of 59 months (range 6–130) and they were extensively questioned about function of the device and its impact on the couple’s sexual life.Results: At the long–term follow–up, 185 patients (92.5%) were still engaging in sexual intercourse with a mean frequency of 1.7/week. Patients and partners reported prosthetic erections as excellent, satisfactory or poor in 96 (48%), 100 (50%) and 4 (2%) cases, and in 20 (17%), 80 (66%) and 20 (17%) cases, respectively. Postoperative sexual activity was considered excellent, satisfactory or poor by 140 (70%), 44 (22%) and 16 (8%) patients and by 34 (28%), 81 (68%) and 5 (4%) partners, respectively. Reasons for patients’ complaints included postoperative penile shortening in 60 (30%) cases and poor glandular engorgement in 40 (20%) cases. Partners’ main complaint was unnaturalness of the prosthetic erection, a factor reported by 30 (25%) subjects. Complications requiring surgical exploration included infection in 12 patients (6%) and mechanical failure in 8 patients (4%). Kaplan–Meier estimates demonstrated significantly decreased mechanical survival for the Ultrex type of cylinders compared to the CX type of cylinders.Conclusions: AMS three–piece inflatable implants provide an overall patient and partner satisfaction rate of 92 and 96%, respectively. However, postoperative penile shortening and poor glandular engorgement were the causes of some complaints among the patient population as well as the unnaturalness of prosthetic erection among female partners. In the long–term, mechanically speaking, CX cylinders seem to be more reliable than the Ultrex ones.

Keywords:
Erectile dysfunction, Penis, Prostheses
1.
Goldstein I, Lue TF, Padma–Nathan H, Rosen R, Steers W, Wicker P: Oral sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1397–1404.
2.
Lewis RW: Long–term results of penile prosthetic implants. Urol Clin North Am 1995;22: 847–856.
3.
Liberman SN, Gomella LG, Hirsch IH: Experience with the Ultrex and Ultrex Plus inflatable penile prosthesis: New implantation techniques and surgical outcome. Int J Impot Res 1998;10:175–179.
4.
Goldstein I, Newman L, Baum N, Brooks M, Chaikin L, Goldberg K, McBride A, Krane RJ: Safety and efficacy outcome of Mentor Alpha–1 inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for impotence treatment. J Urol 1997;157:833– 839.
5.
Goldstein I, Bertero EB, Kaufman JM, Witten EF, Hubbard JG, Fitch WP, Geller RA, McKay DL, Krane RJ, Borges FD, Babayan RK, Tuttle JP, Gruber MB, Harik V, Levenson S: Early experience with the first pre–connected three–piece inflatable penile prosthesis: The Mentor Alpha–1. J Urol 1993;150:1814–1818.
6.
Kaplan EL, Meier P: Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457–460.
7.
Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Ingleright BJ, Montague DK: Long–term mechanical reliability of AMS 700 series inflatable penile prostheses: Comparison of CX/CXM and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol 1997;158:1400–1402.
8.
Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR: Ultrex cylinders: Problems with uncontrolled lengthening (the S–shaped deformity). J Urol 1996;155: 135–137.
9.
Kowalczyk JJ, Mulcahy JJ: Penile curvatures and aneurysmal defects with the Ultrex penile prosthesis corrected with insertion of the AMS 700CX. J Urol 1996;156:398–401.
10.
Holloway FB, Farah R: Intermediate term assessment of the reliability function and patient satisfaction with the AMS 700 Ultrex penile prosthesis. J Urol 1997;157:1687–1691.
11.
Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Ingleright BJ: AMS three–piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation in men with Peyronie’s disease: Comparison of CX and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol 1996;156:1633–1635.
12.
Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, Bergamaschi F, Rigatti P: Patient–partner satisfaction with semirigid penile prostheses for Peyronie’s disease: A 5–year follow–up study. J Urol 1993; 150:1819–1821.
13.
Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, Barbieri L, Maga L, Rigatti P, Graziottin A, Pizzini G, Miani A: AMS 700 CX inflatable penile implants for Peyronie’s disease: Functional results, morbidity and patient–partner satisfaction. Int J Impot Res 1996;8:81–86.
14.
Carson CC: Infections in genitourinary prostheses. Urol North Am 1989;1:139–147.
15.
Radomski SB, Herschorn S: Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection. J Urol 1992;147:383–385.
16.
Kaufman JM, Kaufman JL, Borges FD: Immediate salvage procedure for infected penile prosthesis. J Urol 1998;159:816–818.
17.
Bishop JR, Moul JW, Sihelnik SA, Peppas DS, Gormley TS, McLeod DG: Use of glycosylated hemoglobin to identify diabetics at high risk for penile periprosthetic infections. J Urol 1992;147:386–388.
18.
Wilson SK, Carson CC, Cleves MA, Delk JR: Quantifying risk of penile prostheses infection with elevated glycosylated hemoglobin. J Urol 1998;159:1537–1540.
19.
Carbone DJ, Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Montague DK: Management of severe corporeal fibrosis with implantation of prosthesis via a transverse scrotal approach. J Urol 1998;159:125–127.
20.
Knoll LD: Use of penile prosthetic implants in patients with penile fibrosis. Urol Clin North Am 1995,22:857–863.
21.
Sexton WJ, Benedict JF, Jarow JP: Comparison of long–term outcomes of penile prostheses and intracavernosal injection therapy. J Urol 1998;159:811–815.
22.
Rossi D, Ayuos D, Rattier C, Bladou F, Hermanowicz M, Serment G: Clinical experience with 80 inflatable prostheses. Eur Urol 1997;31:335–338.
23.
Carson CC: Penile prosthesis implantation in the treatment of Peyronie’s disease. Int J Impot Res 1998;10:125–128.
2000
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.