Meuleman E J
Academisch Ziekenhuis, Afd. Urologie, Nijmegen.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993 Feb 20;137(8):412-6.
The efficacy of two types of an external vacuum device designed to overcome erectile dysfunction was evaluated in 78 unselected patients. In 80% an organic aetiological factor was found. Although 77% of the men were able to achieve an erection adequate for penetration, only 46% continued treatment after 1 month. Among the reasons for discontinuation were ineffectiveness in 18 (23%), side effects in 7 (9%), recovery of spontaneous erection in 6 (8%), the time-consuming nature of the procedure 5 (6%), lack of acceptance of patient and partner 4 (5%), the high costs of the pump 2 (3%). The highest discontinuation rate was encountered in patients without signs of organic aetiology (81%). The device provides a non-invasive, reversible and safe alternative for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. It does not necessitate comprehensive aetiological assessment of erectile dysfunction. There are no differences between the results of vacuum device therapy (this study) and autoinjection therapy (the literature). The selection of patients who may profit by the vacuum device is enhanced if the patient is allowed to practice in his own private environment before purchasing the device.
在78例未经挑选的患者中评估了两种用于克服勃起功能障碍的外置真空装置的疗效。80%的患者存在器质性病因。虽然77%的男性能够勃起至足以进行性交，但1个月后只有46%的患者继续治疗。停药原因包括无效18例（23%）、副作用7例（9%）、自发勃起恢复6例（8%）、操作耗时5例（6%）、患者及其伴侣不接受4例（5%）、泵成本高2例（3%）。无器质性病因迹象的患者停药率最高（81%）。该装置为勃起功能障碍的治疗提供了一种非侵入性、可逆且安全的替代方法。它无需对勃起功能障碍进行全面的病因评估。真空装置疗法（本研究）与自体注射疗法（文献）的结果无差异。如果允许患者在购买装置前在自己的私人环境中进行练习，则有助于选择可能从真空装置中获益的患者。
