Background
Few prospective studies in literature with long postoperative follow-up compared between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques.
Aim
To compare between cavernous tissue sparing and conventional penile prosthesis implantation techniques in terms of patient and partner satisfaction and perioperative outcomes.
Methods
In All, 60 Patients with severe erectile dysfunction were randomized into 2 equal groups; patients undergoing conventional malleable penile prosthesis implantation, and patients undergoing the cavernous tissue-sparing technique. Postoperatively, prosthesis function and patient satisfaction were assessed at 6 weeks after surgery and then 3–6 and 12 months using EDITS and QoLSPP questionnaires. Patients were asked about residual penile tumescence. Perioperative data were recorded.
Results
Modified EDITS questionnaire after 3,6, and 12 months was 76.9 ± 18, 79 ± 17 and 82.3 ± 16 respectively. As QOLSPP questionnaire, 46 (73.8%) subjects were highly satisfied, 25 patients (83.3%) in cavernous tissue sparing and 21 patients (70.00%) in Conventional group. While 14 (26.2%) were less satisfied, 5 patients (16.7%) Cavernous tissue sparing and 9 patients (30.00%) in Conventional group. In the cavernous tissue-sparing group, 26 of 30 patients (86.6%) reported having a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence versus 2 of 30 patients (6.6%) in the conventional surgery group (P |
