HISTORICAL AND PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC ASPECTS OF PENILE IMPLANTATION
ARTICLE PDF (Українська)

Keywords

penile implantation
sexual satisfaction
psychotherapeutic correction
sexual couple
dissatisfaction
complications

How to Cite

Kornyenko, O. M., Shcherbak, M. O., & Nurimanov, K. R. (2023). HISTORICAL AND PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC ASPECTS OF PENILE IMPLANTATION. Clinical and Preventive Medicine, (8), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.31612/2616-4868.8.2023.10

Abstract

Introduction. To date, despite significant progress in the field of erectile dysfunction (ED) pharmacotherapy, for a certain group of patients, the implantation of a penile prosthesis is the only possible way to return them to an active sexual life. To increase the satisfaction with the sexual life of men and their partners, the improvement of models of penile prostheses, which has its own history, is being carried out. In addition, in andrology, methods of psychotherapeutic correction of ED are introduced for both men and their partners.

The aim. To determine the influence of the type of penile implant and psychotherapeutic correction on the frequency of satisfaction of sexual partners.

Materials and methods. Out of 354 patients operated on by us, 80 men with severe organic ED and their sexual partners consented to participate in the study. Men underwent penile implantation. Participants were divided into two groups:

1st group – 40 couples in which men had a plastic implant installed;

The 2nd group – 40 couples in which men had a hydraulic implant installed.

Each group was divided into two subgroups. In subgroups 1a (20 couples) and 2a (20 couples), psychological counseling was given to both partners before and after the operation, in subgroups 1b and 2b no psychological counseling was given.

Results: Between subgroups 1b and 2b, patients whose psychological counseling was not performed, differences in the general satisfaction with sexual life in women were not observed, and it was observed in both subgroups in 65% of the patients' partners. Men of these subgroups were satisfied with their sex life after implantation in 80% and 85%, respectively.

In 95% of women after psychotherapeutic support (subgroups 1a and 2a), satisfaction with sexual life was noted, which was statistically significantly higher (Fisher's exact test, p < 0.05) than in women of subgroups 1b and 2b.

In men of subgroups 1a and 2a, this indicator corresponded to 90% and 95%, respectively. Dissatisfaction among partners in subgroups 1b, 2b, respectively, was 35%, among women after psychotherapeutic correction (subgroups 1a, 2a), 10% and 5%, respectively.

Conclusions. The obtained data show that satisfaction with sexual life in men does not depend on the implant model and psychological counseling. Unlike men, the frequency of satisfaction with sexual life in female partners after psychotherapeutic correction reaches 95%, which is statistically significant more than without it (р˂0.05).

https://doi.org/10.31612/2616-4868.8.2023.10
ARTICLE PDF (Українська)

References

Hakky, T. S., Wang, R., & Henry, G. D. (2014). The evolution of the inflatable penile prosthetic device and surgical innovations with anatomical considerations. Current urology reports, 15(6), 410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0410-9

Schultheiss, D., Gabouev, A. I., & Jonas, U. (2005). Nikolaj A. Bogoraz (1874-1952): pioneer of phalloplasty and penile implant surgery. The journal of sexual medicine, 2(1), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20114.x

Gee W. F. (1975). A history of surgical treatment of impotence. Urology, 05(3), 401–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(75)90168-5

Carson C.C. (1998). Penile prostheses: state of the art. In: Kirby RS, O'Leary MP, editors. Recent advances in urology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone;. pp. 61–72. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.3.179

Goldstein, I., Lue, T. F., Padma-Nathan, H., Rosen, R. C., Steers, W. D., & Wicker, P. A. (1998). Oral sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Sildenafil Study Group. The New England journal of medicine, 338(20), 1397–1404. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199805143382001

Wilson, S. K., & Delk, J. R., 2nd (2000). Historical advances in penile prostheses. International journal of impotence research, 12 Suppl 4, S101–S107. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900586

Scott, F. B., Bradley, W. E., & Timm, G. W. (1973). Management of erectile impotence. Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology, 2(1), 80–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(73)90224-0

Small, M. P., Carrion, H. M., & Gordon, J. A. (1975). Small-Carrion penile prosthesis. New implant for management of impotence. Urology, 5(4), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(75)90071-0

Jonas, U., & Jacobi, G. H. (1980). Silicone-silver penile prosthesis: description, operative approach and results. The Journal of urology, 123(6), 865–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)56168-6

Dorflinger, T., & Bruskewitz, R. (1986). AMS malleable penile prosthesis. Urology, 28(6), 480–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(86)90147-0

Moul, J. W., & McLeod, D. G. (1986). Experience with the AMS 600 malleable penile prosthesis. The Journal of urology, 135(5), 929–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)45926-x

Salama N. (2004). Satisfaction with the malleable penile prosthesis among couples from the Middle East--is it different from that reported elsewhere?. International journal of impotence research, 16(2), 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901150

Garber B. B. (1994). Mentor Alpha 1 inflatable penile prosthesis: patient satisfaction and device reliability. Urology, 43(2), 214–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(94)90047-7

Kearse, W. S., Jr, Sago, A. L., Peretsman, S. J., Bolton, J. O., Holcomb, R. G., Reddy, P. K., Bernhard, P. H., Eppel, S. M., Lewis, J. H., & Gladshteyn, M. (1996). Report of a multicenter clinical evaluation of the Dura-II penile prosthesis. The Journal of urology, 155(5), 1613–1616. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8627835/

Fathy, A., Shamloul, R., AbdelRahim, A., Zeidan, A., El-Dakhly, R., & Ghanem, H. (2007). Experience with Tube (Promedon) malleable penile implant. Urologia internationalis, 79(3), 244–247. https://doi.org/10.1159/000107957

Scarzella G. L. (1990). Transverse scrotal approach for insertion of AMS inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology, 35(4), 373. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(90)80171-i

Wilson S. K. (2003). Reimplantation of inflatable penile prosthesis into scarred corporeal bodies. International journal of impotence research, 15 Suppl 5, S125–S128. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901086

Wilson, S. K., Cleves, M. A., & Delk, J. R., 2nd (2001). Long-term followup of treatment for Peyronie's disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. The Journal of urology, 165(3), 825–829. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11176479/

Brusky, J. P., Tran, V. Q., Rieder, J. M., & Aboseif, S. R. (2008). A preliminary report on combined penoscrotal and perineal approach for placement of penile prosthesis with corporal fibrosis. Advances in urology, 2008, 524392. https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/524392

Sadeghi-Nejad, H., Ilbeigi, P., Wilson, S. K., Delk, J. R., Siegel, A., Seftel, A. D., Shannon, L., & Jung, H. (2005). Multi-institutional outcome study on the efficacy of closed-suction drainage of the scrotum in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. International journal of impotence research, 17(6), 535–538. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901354

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.