背景:勃起功能障碍可导致自我戒断和生活质量下降。对药物治疗和其他保守治疗无反应的患者应进行阴茎假体植入。可塑阴茎假体是第一个开发的假体,但后来开发了充气阴茎假体,以提供更自然的勃起。没有荟萃分析在安全性和有效性方面比较充气和可塑阴茎假体。这项研究旨在评估患者和伴侣的满意度,易用性,机械故障,阴茎假体植入患者的感染率。
方法:本荟萃分析遵循系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)方案的首选报告项目。五项符合条件的研究来自Pubmed,Scopus,ScienceDirect,和SemanticScholar数据库。
结果:在这项研究中,患者和伴侣的满意度显著提高(OR3.39,95%CI1.66-6.93,p=0.0008)(OR2.32,95%CI1.75-3.08,p<0.00001).可充气阴茎假体的机械故障也显着较高(OR5.60,95%CI2.02-15.53,p=0.0009)。充气或可塑阴茎假体在易用性和感染率方面没有显着差异。
结论:这项研究得出结论,充气阴茎假体在患者和伴侣满意度方面更好,但是在这种类型的假体中,机械故障发生得更频繁。
BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.