Blackard C E, Borkon W D, Lima J S, Nelson J
Erectile Dysfunction Clinic, Park Nicollet Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Urology. 1993 Mar;41(3):225-30. doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(93)90561-n.
The causes and treatment of venogenic impotence are still controversial. From September 1989 to April 1991, 317 men complaining of impotence were evaluated in our Erectile Dysfunction Clinic. Seventy patients were suspected of having venous leakage, and all men had dynamic cavernosography performed. Forty-seven of these 70 men (67%) had venous leakage, and a vacuum tumescence device was recommended as initial treatment for all of them. A questionnaire was later mailed to all 47 patients. A response to the questionnaire was obtained from 45 men (96%). Twenty-nine patients had purchased a vacuum tumescence device (Osbon ErecAid). A satisfactory result was obtained in 20 patients (69%) with venous leakage. Since the use of the vacuum tumescence device is relatively safe and noninvasive, and the results are as good as or better than venous ligation, we recommend its use as the initial treatment of venogenic impotence until a consistently reliable treatment for this condition is found.
静脉性阳痿的病因及治疗仍存在争议。1989年9月至1991年4月，在我们的勃起功能障碍诊所对317名主诉阳痿的男性进行了评估。70名男性被怀疑存在静脉漏，所有男性均接受了动态海绵体造影。这70名男性中有47名（67%）存在静脉漏，建议对他们所有人采用真空勃起装置作为初始治疗。随后向所有47名患者邮寄了问卷。45名男性（96%）回复了问卷。29名患者购买了真空勃起装置（奥斯本ErecAid）。20名存在静脉漏的患者（69%）取得了满意的效果。由于真空勃起装置的使用相对安全且无创，且效果与静脉结扎一样好或更好，因此我们建议将其作为静脉性阳痿的初始治疗方法，直到找到针对这种情况的持续可靠的治疗方法。
