%0 Journal Article
%T Efficacy and safety of malleable penile prosthesis compared to inflatable penile prosthesis in erectile dysfunction patients.
%A Satwikananda H
%A Laksita TB
%A Djatisoesanto W
%A Soebadi DM
%J Arch Ital Urol Androl
%V 96
%N 2
%D 2024 Jun 27
%M 38934528
暂无%R 10.4081/aiua.2024.12353
%X <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Erectile dysfunction can cause self-withdrawal and decreased quality of life. Patients who do not respond to pharmacological therapy and other conservative treatments are urged to undergo penile prosthesis implantation. Malleable penile prosthesis was the first prosthesis developed, but then inflatable penile prosthesis was developed to give a more natural erection. There is no meta-analysis comparing inflatable and malleable penile prostheses in terms of safety and efficacy. This study is conducted to evaluate patient and partner satisfaction, ease of use, mechanical failure, and infection rate in patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>This meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocols. Five eligible studies were included from Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and SemanticScholar databases.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>In this study, patient and partner satisfaction are significantly better (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.66-6.93, p = 0.0008) (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.75-3.08, p < 0.00001). Mechanical failure is also significantly higher in inflatable penile prostheses (OR 5.60, 95% CI 2.02-15.53, p = 0.0009). There is no significant difference in terms of ease of use and infection rate in inflatable or malleable penile prostheses.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>This study concluded that inflatable penile prosthesis is better in terms of patient and partner satisfaction, but mechanical failures occur more frequently in this type of prosthesis.