slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Introduction PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 1

Introduction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

No. 100. Comparison between AMS700 TM CX and Coloplast TM Titan inflatable penile prostheses for Peyronie’s disease treatment and remodelling: Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Eric Chung 1,2 , Matthew Solomon 1,2 , Ling De Young 2 and Gerald B Brock 2

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

No. 100

Comparison between AMS700TM CX and ColoplastTM Titan inflatable penile prostheses for Peyronie’s disease treatment and remodelling: Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Eric Chung1,2 , Matthew Solomon1,2, Ling De Young2 and Gerald B Brock2

1 Department of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD Australia

2 Division of Urology, St Joseph Health Care, London, ON Canada

  • Introduction
  • Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is indicated in men with Peyronie’s disease (PD) and medically-refractory erectile dysfunction (ED).
  • The implantation of penile prosthesis with simultaneous manual penile remodelling allows for men with PD and ED to undergo a single procedure aimed at correcting both the penile deformity/curvature and ED.
  • To date, there is no published literature comparing AMS700TM CX and ColoplastTM Titan IPP in patient group.
  • Results
  • A total of 138 patients with an average age of 57.7 (32 to 80) underwent either AMS 700TM CX (88 patients) or ColoplastTM Titans (50 patients) IPP implantation during the 5-year period.
  • The majority of patients (91%) required only one IPP implantation.
  • The IPP clinical outcomes include 8 (6%) revision surgery for device malfunction and 3 (2%) device explantation for prosthesis infection.
  • While there was no statistically significance in device survival and infection between the 2 devices, the trend favoured AMS700 CX over Titan (5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of mechanical survival were 91% vs. 87%, p<0.05) (Figure 1) and both IPPs provided similar penile straightening without the need for revision surgery.
  • Most men (79%) reported great satisfaction following IPP implantation with greater than two thirds of men reported greater self-confidence and 82% of patients would undergo the same operation again (Table 1).


To evaluate the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction following AMS700TM CX and Titan IPPs implantation.

  • Methods
  • A retrospective review of clinical database and prospective independent telephone survey were undertaken in all men who underwent IPP implantation for PD between January 2006 and December 2010.
  • Patient demographics, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scores, preoperative PD characteristics, previous PD therapies and types of IPP implanted were reviewed.
  • Follow-up assessments included surgical outcomes and overall patient satisfactions such as ease and frequency of use, patient and partner satisfaction, and self esteem.

Figure 1: Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival from mechanical failure showed trend toward enhanced AMS 700 CX over Titan IPP that did not reach statistical significance at 5 years (p>0.05).

Table 1: Selected characteristics of survey responders

  • Conclusions
  • IPP implantation and remodelling appears to provide permanent penile straightening without an increase risk in revision surgery.
  • AMS 700TM CX and Titan IPPs were similar in device survival and patient satisfaction.

Poster presentation sponsor