Urological Research Network, Miami, FL, USA.
Urological Research Network, Miami, FL, USA; Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
J Sex Med. 2022 Sep;19(9):1472-1478. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2022.06.018. Epub 2022 Aug 4.
Most of the published literature addressing the satisfaction postinflatable penile implant (IPP) placement includes non-validated surveys.
The study aims to report the survey outcomes of the English version of The QoLSPP and to evaluate the different factors that could influence these results.
Patients who underwent inflatable penile implant placement from January 2017 to December 2019 received a survey by phone and had a visit scheduled no sooner than 27 months after surgery. In the clinic, they were inquired about the penile size and underwent measurements of postoperative penile length and diameter. The survey responses were rated from zero to 5 following QoLSPP, and answers ≥3 were considered positive. An evaluation of the factors influencing the quality-of-life score of patients post-IPP placement was performed. Variables included age (<60, 60-70, >70), BMI classification, Charlson Comorbidity Index, diabetes diagnosis, implant type (AMS 700CX vs Titan), ED etiology, revisions, postoperative time in months (<30, 30-40, >40) and preoperative vs postoperative penile dimensions in those who attended the clinic.
The primary outcome was to obtain accurate patient-reported satisfaction after inflatable penile implantation.
Within the timeframe, 542 patients underwent first-time IPP placements. Of that group, 322(n) completed the surveys, and 109 patients attended the clinic to compare preoperative vs postoperative dimensions. Of note, 67 (61.4%) and 54 (49.4 %) demonstrated enlargement in length and diameter, respectively. Conversely, 12 (11%) and 4 (3.7%) experienced a shortening in length and girth. We found 66 (60.5%) patients who complained about a penile size decrease after the intervention. The survey had a positive response in 93.1% of the cases. There were no statistically significant differences in positive responses concerning the variables investigated. The subpopulation analysis of the penile-sized group neither showed response variations.
The investigation allowed a better understanding of patient-reported satisfaction post-IPP placement.
STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The performance of all the procedures in a high-volume center by a single surgeon limits its generalization.
The overall results after IPP surgery are positive in most patients who underwent the procedure and the variables investigated did not influence the overall outcomes of the QoLSPP survey in the study. Luna E, Rodriguez D, Barrios D, et al. Evaluation of Quality of Life After Inflatable Penile Implantation and Analysis of Factors Influencing Postsurgery Patient Satisfaction. J Sex Med 2022;19:1472-1478.
大多数涉及充气阴茎植入物（IPP）后满意度的已发表文献都包括未经验证的调查。
本研究旨在报告英文版 QoLSPP 的调查结果，并评估可能影响这些结果的不同因素。
2017 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月接受充气阴茎植入物放置的患者通过电话接受调查，并在手术后 27 个月内安排就诊。在诊所，他们被询问阴茎大小，并进行术后阴茎长度和直径的测量。根据 QoLSPP，调查回复的评分从 0 到 5，评分≥3 被认为是积极的。对影响患者 IPP 放置后生活质量评分的因素进行了评估。变量包括年龄（<60、60-70、>70）、BMI 分类、Charlson 合并症指数、糖尿病诊断、植入物类型（AMS 700CX 与 Titan）、ED 病因、翻修、术后时间（<30、30-40、>40）和术前与术后在诊所就诊的患者的阴茎尺寸。
主要结果是获得充气阴茎植入后患者准确的报告满意度。
在研究时间段内，542 名患者接受了首次 IPP 放置。在该组中，322 名患者（n）完成了调查，109 名患者就诊以比较术前与术后的尺寸。值得注意的是，分别有 67（61.4%）和 54（49.4%）名患者在长度和直径上分别显示增大。相反，有 12（11%）和 4（3.7%）名患者的长度和周长缩短。我们发现 66（60.5%）名患者在干预后抱怨阴茎尺寸减小。93.1%的病例调查回复呈阳性。在调查的变量方面，阳性反应没有统计学上的显著差异。阴茎大小组的亚群分析也没有显示出反应的变化。
该研究对 IPP 手术后患者报告的满意度有了更好的了解。
由一名外科医生在一家大容量中心进行所有手术操作限制了其推广。
Luna E, Rodriguez D, Barrios D, et al. Evaluation of Quality of Life After Inflatable Penile Implantation and Analysis of Factors Influencing Postsurgery Patient Satisfaction. J Sex Med 2022;19:1472-1478.
