Comparison of Long-Term Results and Couples’ Satisfaction with Penile Implant Types and Brands: Lessons Learned From 883 Patients With Erectile Dysfunction Who Underwent Penile Prosthesis Implantation

Abstract Introduction No study has compared surgical outcomes and couples’ satisfaction among the 3 types of implants, with all brands available on the markets. Aims To compare long-term complications, mechanical reliability, and couples’ satisfaction with penile implant types and brands in patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation. We also investigated whether there are risk factors that might predict couples’ dissatisfaction. Methods This retrospective study included 883 patients with erectile dysfunction who underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Of the patients, 349 had malleable penile implant, 26 had 2-piece implants, and 508 had 3-piece implants. Main Outcome Measure Couples’ satisfaction after surgery was evaluated with the modified Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction questionnaire. Surgical outcomes, mechanical reliability, and couples’ satisfaction were compared according to type and brand of the penile implants in all patients. Results The mean age and follow-up period of the patients were 57.74 ± 9.59 years and 67.81 ± 49.11 months, respectively. The couples’ satisfaction rates were significantly higher in the 3-piece implant group than in the malleable group (P < .001), but there was no significant difference between the 2-piece and 3-piece implant groups. There was no difference in terms of couples’ satisfaction according to the brand of the implants. Of the patients who had malleable implants, 27 (7.7%) underwent 3-piece penile prosthesis implantation due to dissatisfaction; however, only 1 (0.2%) of the patients with a 3-piece implant was switched to a malleable implant (P < .001). The highest rate of revision surgery due to penile corporal perforation was in the malleable group (2.6%), whereas the highest rate of revision surgery due to penile implant malfunction occurred in the 3-piece implant group (5.5%) (P = .021 and .001, respectively). To analyze risk factors, using multivariate analysis, presence of complication was the only predictor that might cause couples’ dissatisfaction (P = .003). Conclusions 3-piece and 2-piece implants have higher couples’ satisfaction rates than the malleable implant. Brands of implants did not have any effect on the couples’ satisfaction. Regarding detail of the complications, the 3-piece implant has a lower rate of penile corporal perforation and a higher rate of penile implant malfunction than the malleable implant. Patients with erectile dysfunction who need a penile implant should be informed about surgical outcomes, brands, and types of penile implants. Prosthesis choice should be customized to individual patient’s expectations/conditions and tailored accordingly.