Muhammet Fuat ÖZCAN, Muhammed Ersagun ARSLAN, Kemal ENER, Serkan ALTINOVA, BAHRİ GÖK, Ziya AKBULUT

Penil protez implantasyonu yapılan hastalarda memnuniyet değerlendirmesi

Amaç: Erektil disfonksiyon nedeniyle penil protez implantasyonu yapılan hastaların tedaviden memnuniyetlerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Ekim 2006-Ağustos 2012 tarihleri arasında erektil disfonksiyon nedeniyle penil protez implantasyonu yapılan hastalar 6 sorudan oluşan ve cevapları 1-5 arasında skorlanan 1: Son derece memnuniyetsiz-5: Son derece memnun Male Sexual Health Questionnaire MSHQ anketinin memnuniyet skalası ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Penil protez implantasyonu yapılan 33 Hastadan 22 si çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 55,6±10,9 35-71 yıldı. MSHQ anketinden elde edilen toplam skorun ortanca 23 8-28 olduğu saptandı. MSHQ anketinin soruları ve her bir soru için aynı olan cevap örneği tablo 1 ve 2 de gösterilmiştir. Cevaplarında her bir sorudan en az birinde “son derece memnuniyetsiz”, “kısmen memnun değil” yanıtı veren hasta sayısının sırasıyla 3 ve 4 olduğu; 14 hastanın en az bir soruya “son derece memnun” yanıtını verdiği gözlendi. Hastaların hiç birinde cerrahi komplikasyon ve tedavi başarısızlığı gözlenmedi. Sonuç: Penil protez implantasyonunun cerrahi başarısı yüksek olmakla birlikte hastaların hepsi tedavi sonrası aynı memnuniyete sahip değildir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Cinsel sağlık, erektil disfonksiyon, penil protez

Satisfaction evaluation of the patients with penile prosthesis implantation

Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the satisfaction of the patients whom were implanted penil prosthesis for erectile dysfunction. Material and Methods: Male Sexual Health Questionnaire MSHQ were applied to patients implanted penil prosthesis due to erectile dysfunction consisted of 6 questions with answers 1 to 5 1 Extremely Unsatisfied, 5 ExtremelySatisfied between October 2006 and August 2012. Results: 22 of 33 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 55,6±10,9 35-71 years. Mean MSHQ score was 23 8-28 . MSHQ questions and answer samples are shown in table 1 and 2. Three and 4 patients answerded at least 1 question as, extremely unsatisfied and moderately unsatisfied respectively whereas 14 patients answered at least 1 question as extremely satisfied. No surgery complication and treatment failure. Conclusion: Although penil prosthesis surgery has successful results, all the patients do not feel the same satisfaction

Keywords:

Erectile dysfunction, penile prosthesis, sexual health,

PDF

___

Evans C. The use of penile prostheses in the treatment of impotence. Br J Urol 1998;81:591-8.
Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence: use of implantable inﬂatable prosthesis. Uro- logy 1973;2:80–2.
Hatzimouratidisand K, Hatzichristou DG. A comparative review of the options for treatment of erectile dysfunction: which treatment for which patient ? Drugs 2005;65:1621– 50.
Mulcahy JJ, Austoni E, Barada JH, Choi HK, Hellstrom WJ, Krishnamurti S, et al. The penile implant for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2004;1:98-109.
Montague DK. Penile prosthesis implantation in the era of medical treatment for erectile dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am 2011;38:217-25.
Martínez-Salamanca JI, Mueller A, Moncada I, Carbal- lido J, Mulhall JP. Penile prosthesis surgery in patients with corporal fibrosis: a state of the art review. J Sex Med 2011;8:1880-9.
Bernal RM, Henry GD. Contemporary patient satisfaction rates for three-piece inflatable penile prostheses. Adv Urol 2012;707321.
Kramer AC, Schweber A. Patient expectations prior to co- loplast titan penile prosthesis implant predicts postopera- tive satisfaction. J Sex Med 2010;7:2261-6.
Montorsi F, Rigatti P, Carmignani G, Corbu C, Campo B, Ordesi G, et al. AMS three-piece inﬂatable implants for erectile dysfunction: a long-term multi-institutional study in 200 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 2000;37:50-5.
Porena M, Mearini L, Mearini E, Marzi M, Zucchi A. Pe- nile prosthesis implantation and couple’s satisfaction. Urol Int 1999;63:185-7.
Anafarta K, Yaman O, Aydos K. Clinical experience with dynaﬂex penile prostheses in 120 patients. Urology 1998;52:1098–1100.
Goldstein I, Newman L, Baum N, Brooks M, Chaikin L, Goldberg K et al. Safety and eﬃcacy outcome of mentor alpha-1 inﬂatable penile prosthesis implantation for impo- tence treatment. J Urol 1997;3:833-9.
Lledó García E, MoncadaIribarren I, JaraRascón J, Carre- ra Puerta C, González-Chamorro F, LlorenteAbarca C, et al. Treatment with sildenafil of cold glands syndrome after inflatable penile prosthesis. Actas Urol Esp 2004;28:443-6.
Schover LR. Sex therapy for the penile prosthesis recipient. Urol Clin North Am 1989;16:91-8.
Henry G, Houghton L, Culkin D, Otheguy J, Shabsigh R, Ohl DA. Comparison of a new length measurement tech- nique for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation to stan- dard techniques: outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med 2011;8:2640-6.
Bettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, Lucarelli G, Palaz- zo S, Battaglia M, et al. Patient and partner satisfaction after AMS inflatable penile prosthesis implant. J Sex Med 2010;7:304-9.
Brinkman MJ, Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd, Denny GA, Young M, et al. A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses for satisfaction. J Urol 2005;174:253-7.
Goldstein I, Bertero EB, Kaufman JM, Witten FR, Hubbard JG, Fitch WP, et al. Early experience with the first pre- connected 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis: the Mentor Alpha-1. J Urol 1993;150:1814-8.
Natali A, Olianas R, Fisch M. Penile implantation in Euro- pe: successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany. J Sex Med 2008;5:1503-12.
Henry GD, Jennermann C, Eid JF. Evaluation of Satisfac- tion and Axial Rigidity with Titan XL Cylinders. Adv Urol 2012;896070
Rosen RC, Catania J, Pollack L, Althof S, O’Leary M, Sef- tel AD. Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ): sca- le development and psychometric validation. Urology 2004;64:777-82.