The Experts below are selected from a list of 312 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Bruce R. Kava - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

John N. Kabalin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Christof Van Der Horst - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Endoscopic Retrieval of a Penile prosthesis' Rear‐Tip Extender
    The journal of sexual medicine, 2008
    Co-Authors: Anne-kathrin Munk-hartig, S.h. Stübinger, Klaus-peter Jünemann, Christof Van Der Horst
    Abstract:

    ABSTRACT Introduction The renewal of Penile prosthesis is a foreseeable intervention because of the limited survival time of the different implants. It usually becomes necessary simply for material fatigue after long-term regular use; in some cases, premature intervention might be necessary because of infection or other perioperative complications. Aim In the case presented here, the removal of a Dynaflex Penile prosthesis showed a missing rear-tip extender on the right-hand tube. Main Outcome Measures and Methods A cavernoscopy of the right cavernous body was performed by using a conventional urethrocystoscope. The found rear-tip extender was extracted by using alligator forceps via the cystoscopic device. Results A new AMS CX hydraulic cavernous body prosthesis was successfully implanted. It has proven fully functional up to the current follow-up control. Conclusions This case shows that cavernoscopy is a gentle intraoperative procedure for diagnosing and removing material in Penile prosthesis surgery. Munk-Hartig A-K, Stubinger SH, Junemann K-P, and van der Horst C. Endoscopic retrieval of a Penile prosthesis' rear-tip extender.

Cynthia T. Soloway - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Drogo K. Montague - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • erosion of inflatable Penile prosthesis reservoir into neobladder
    The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2013
    Co-Authors: Christine N Tran, Drogo K. Montague, Nicholas Boncher, Kenneth W. Angermeier
    Abstract:

    Abstract Introduction Erosion of the reservoir into surrounding tissues is a rare complication after inflatable Penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation. Aim To present a new case and a review of the literature including discussion of pathogenesis, risk factors, and management options. Methods We present the case of a 75-year-old male who underwent placement of an IPP for postoperative erectile dysfunction with a history of bladder cancer requiring radical cystoprostatectomy and Studer neobladder. Six years after IPP placement, he presented with recurrent febrile urinary tract infection that seemed to be precipitated by cycling of his Penile prosthesis. Cystoscopy and cross-sectional computed tomography imaging demonstrated erosion of the inflatable Penile prosthesis reservoir into the neobladder. Results Patient underwent open removal of the IPP reservoir and cystorrhaphy with a plan for future prefascial reimplantation of an IPP reservoir. Conclusions In patients with a history of abdomino-pelvic surgery or radiation therapy, the retroperitoneal space may be extremely fibrotic and the transversalis fascia may have thickened. Potential intraoperative complications as well as reservoir erosion may be avoided by using a two-piece device or ectopic reservoir placement. Management options for reservoir erosion include explantation of the entire device as well as reservoir removal with salvage of remaining components. Tran CN, Boncher N, Montague DK, and Angermeier KW. Erosion of inflatable Penile prosthesis reservoir into neobladder. J Sex Med 2013;10:2343–2346.

  • Penile prosthesis implantation in the era of medical treatment for erectile dysfunction.
    The Urologic clinics of North America, 2011
    Co-Authors: Drogo K. Montague
    Abstract:

    Penile prosthesis implantation, the oldest of the modern treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED), still plays an important role despite the advent of less invasive alternatives. For some men with ED, Penile prosthesis implantation is the only effective or acceptable treatment. Penile prosthesis implantation remains a viable option in the contemporary management of ED as evidenced by annual Penile prosthesis implantation cases in the United States rising from 17,540 in 2000 to 22,420 in 2009. Improvements in prosthesis design and implantation techniques have resulted in significant increases in device survival and patient satisfaction.

  • Penile prosthesis implantation : Size matters
    European urology, 2006
    Co-Authors: Drogo K. Montague
    Abstract:

    When the outcome of Penile prosthesis implantation according to the surgeon is excellent and the patient is displeased, the reason in my experience is almost always that the patient’s expectations in terms of Penile size have not been met. With today’s three-piece inflatable Penile prostheses, Penile girth is seldom an issue. Instead when prosthesis recipients are dissatisfied, it is usually because their expectations in terms of length with the prosthetic erection have not been met. This is based on the patient’s recall of his erect Penile length. Many of these men with erectile dysfunction have not had a normal erection in many months or years. Some have become obese with added adipose tissue in the prepubic area. Others have acquired disorders (e.g., Peyronie’s disease) that produce Penile shortening. Even in the absence of these factors, a patient’s recall of his former erections may sometimes err in the direction of exaggerated length. In this issue, Deveci and coworkers compare stretched Penile length to Penile length following three-piece or two-piece inflatable Penile prosthesis implantation in 56 first- time Penile prosthesis recipients [1]. Although they found no found no statistically significant difference in stretched Penile length before implant surgery and Penile length with the prosthesis after surgery, 72% of the recipients reported a decrease in their Penile length after surgery. Perceived loss of Penile length was more common in men who had undergone radical prostatectomy. Savoie et al. measured stretched Penile length before and after radical prostatectomy in 124 men [2]. There was a significant decrease in stretched Penile length after prostatectomy and in 12 patients (19%) it was a 15% decrease. The findings of Deveci et al. in this regard therefore are

  • Penile prosthesis IMPLANTATION
    The Urologic clinics of North America, 2001
    Co-Authors: Drogo K. Montague, Kenneth W. Angermeier
    Abstract:

    Urologists did not develop a significant interest in the treatment of erectile dysfunction until the introduction of the inflatable Penile prosthesis in 1973. 27 For the next 10 years, the treatment of erectile dysfunction was fairly straightforward, that is, sex therapy for potentially reversible erectile dysfunction and Penile prosthesis implantation for almost every other form. Currently, a variety of treatment options are available for erectile dysfunction, including systemic therapy, sex therapy, vacuum erection devices, intraurethral medication, Penile injection therapy, Penile revascularization, and Penile prosthesis implantation. Topics discussed in this article include the role of Penile prosthesis implantation in the treatment of erectile dysfunction, the selection of candidates for prosthesis implantation, the types of devices available and their indications, and the methods of implantation and the results.

  • Penile prosthesis infections
    International journal of impotence research, 2001
    Co-Authors: Drogo K. Montague, Kenneth W. Angermeier, Milton M. Lakin
    Abstract:

    In this retrospective review we looked at infection rates and risk factors in Penile prosthesis recipients. Computer registry records of patients implanted with three-piece inflatable prostheses from April 1986 to March 1999 were reviewed. Bacteriological culture report data were obtained from the medical records. There were 491 three-piece inflatable Penile prosthesis recipients with follow-up ranging from 1 to 168 months (mean 83). All patients were implanted more than 1 y ago. There were 10 infections in 491 recipients (2.0%). In 285 primary prosthesis recipients there were seven infections (2.5%). In 206 secondary prosthesis recipients there were three infections (1.5%). Seven infections occurred in 354 non-diabetics (2.0%) and three infections occurred in 137 diabetics (2.2%). None of these differences were statistically significant. Explants for infection were performed in 8 weeks or less following implantation in eight patients. In two patients explants occurred at 17 and 26 months following implantation. Cultures from the periprosthetic space grew E. coli (four), Proteus mirabilis (two), Staph. aureus (two), and bacteroides (two). Infections occurred in 2.0% of three-piece inflatable Penile prosthesis recipients. There were no statistically significant differences in infection rates between first time and repeat prosthesis recipients and between diabetic and non-diabetic recipients. Eight of the 10 infections occurred 8 weeks or less following implantation.