Initial experience of a single center with the use of ZSI 475 penile prosthesis

doi:10.1016/j.ajur.2020.02.002

Asian Journal of Urology, 2021, 8 (2): 176-182 doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2020.02.002

Original Articles

Current Issue | Archive | Adv Search

Initial experience of a single center with the use of ZSI 475 penile prosthesis

Fulvio Colombo^a,Giorgio Gentile^a,*(

),Valerio Vagnoni^a,Alessandro Fiorillo^b,Pietro Piazza^b,Fabrizio Sartorio^b,Alessandro Franceschelli^a

^a Andrology Unit, University Hospital S. Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy
^b Department of Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Abstract
Related Citation (1)

Download:

HTML

PDF (808KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract

Objective To evaluate surgical outcomes after implantation of the Zephyr ZSI 475 inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and patients' quality of life.
Methods From December 2014 to September 2018, 15 patients underwent prosthesis implantation with ZSI 475. A retrospective review of clinical data was performed. Patients' quality of life after implantation was investigated with Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaire.
Results The median age of patients was 57 years and the average follow-up time was 22 months. Twelve patients received a standard implantation due to severe erectile dysfunction (ED); three patients also presented penile curvature and additional corporoplasty with grafting was necessary. Three procedures had to be interrupted due to defects of the insertion tools. In one case a manufacturing defect resulted in a pump leak. In one case, a severe postoperative complication occurred, which requested explanation of the device. During the follow-up, four patients experienced mechanical failure of the prosthesis. Results of QoLSPP questionnaire at 12 months were skewed toward the positive end of the scale in all domains.
Conclusion In our initial experience, ZSI 475 suffered a high rate of mechanical failures; on the other hand, the company showed great commitment in order to improve the quality and reliability of the device. The lower cost of ZSI 475 may add to the chances of the product to become a cost-effective alternative to treat those patient who need a IPP.

Key words： Erectile dysfunction Implantation Penile prosthesis Satisfaction Zephyr ZSI 475

Received: 13 July 2019 Available online: 10 February 2020

Corresponding Authors: Giorgio Gentile E-mail: dr.giorgio.gentile@gmail.com

	Service
	E-mail this article
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	Articles by authors
	Fulvio Colombo
	Giorgio Gentile
	Valerio Vagnoni
	Alessandro Fiorillo
	Pietro Piazza
	Fabrizio Sartorio
	Alessandro Franceschelli

TRENDMD:

Cite this article:

Fulvio Colombo,Giorgio Gentile,Valerio Vagnoni, et al. Initial experience of a single center with the use of ZSI 475 penile prosthesis[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2021, 8(2): 176-182.

URL:

http://www.ajurology.com/EN/10.1016/j.ajur.2020.02.002 OR http://www.ajurology.com/EN/Y2021/V8/I2/176

Comparative table: Main characteristics of AMS-Boston, Coloplast and Zephyr surgical implants devices.

ZSI 475 standard size kit.

ZSI 475 aspect with flexible rear tips.

ZSI 475 Kaplan-Meier overall survival estimate (%).

QoLSPP questionnaire item scores.

[1]	Levine LA, Becher EF, Bella AJ, Brant WO, Kohler TS, Martinez-Salamanca JI, et al. Penile prosthesis surgery: Current recommendations from the international consultation on sexual medicine. J Sex Med 2016; 13:489e518.
[2]	Montague DK. Penile prosthesis implantation in the era of medical treatment for erectile dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am 2011; 38:217e25.
[3]	Khera M, Bella A, Bella A, Karpman E, Brant W, Christine B, Kansas B, et al. Penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie’s disease:results of the PROPPER study demonstrates a decrease in patient-reported depression. J Sex Med 2018; 15:786e8.
[4]	Gentile G, Franceschelli A, Massenio P, Tuccio A, Cocci A, Divenuto L, et al. Patient’s satisfaction after 2-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: an Italian multicentric study. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2016; 31:1e3.
[5]	Le B, Burnatt AL. Evolution of penile prosthetic devices. Korean J Urol 2015; 56:179e86.
[6]	Bernal RM, Henry GD. Contemporary patient satisfaction rates for three-piece inflatable penile prostheses. Adv Urol 2012; 2012:707321.
[7]	Hakky TS, Wang R, Henry GD. The evolution of the inflatable penile prosthetic device and surgical innovations with anatomical considerations. Curr Urol Rep 2014; 15:410e9.
[8]	Sadeghi-Nejad H. Penile prosthesis surgery: a review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med 2007; 4:296e309.
[9]	Caraceni E, Utizi L. A questionnaire for the evaluation of quality of life after penile prosthesis implant: quality of life and sexuality with penile prosthesis (QoLSPP): to what extent does the implant affect the patient’s life? J Sex Med 2014; 11:1005e12.
[10]	World Health Organization. Learning together to work together for health. Report of a WHO study on multi- professional education for health personnel. WHO Technical Report Series 769. Geneva: WHO; 1988.
[11]	Zumbo BD, Gadermann AM, Zeisser C. Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. J Mod Appl Stat Methods 2007; 6:21e9.
[12]	Blewniewsk M, Ostrowski I, Pottek T, Neugart F, Ciechan J, Llorens C, et al. Safety and efficacy outcomes of ZSI475 penile prosthesis. Urologia 2017; 84:98e101.
[13]	Vitarelli A, Divenuto L, Fortunato F, Falco A, Pagliarulo V, Antonini G, et al. Long-term patient satisfaction and quality of lifewith AMS700CX inflatable penile prosthesis. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2013; 85:133e7.
[14]	Chung E, Solomon M, DeYoung L, Brock B . Comparison between AMS 700_ CX and Coloplast_ Titan inflatable penile prosthesis for Peyronie’s disease treatment and remodeling: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med 2013; 10:2855e60.
[15]	Akakpo W, Pineda MA, Burnett AL. Critical analysis of satisfaction assessment after Penile prosthesis surgery. Sex Med Rev 2017; 5:244e51.
[16]	Carvalheira A, Santana R, Pereira NM. Why are men satisfied or dissatisfied with penile implants? A mixed method study on satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med 2015; 12:2474e80.
[17]	Capogrosso P, Pescatori E, Caraceni E, Mondaini N, Utizi L, Cai T, et al. Satisfaction rate at 1-year follow-up in patients treated with penile implants: data from the multicentre prospective registry INSIST-ED. BJU Int 2019; 123:360e6.
[18]	Lledó-Garc?á E, Jara-Rascón J, Moncada Iribarren I, Pinero-Sanchez J, Aragon-Chamizo J, Hernandez-Fernandez C. Penile prosthesis first and replacement surgeries: analysis of patient and partner satisfaction. J Sex Med 2015; 12:1646e53.
[19]	Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol 2001; 166:932e7.
[20]	Henry G, Houghton L, Culkin D, Otheguy J, Shabsig R, Ohl DA. Comparison of a new length measurement technique for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation to standard techniques:outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med 2011; 8:2640e6.
[21]	Pillay B, Moon D, Love C, Meyer D, Ferguson E, Crowe H, et al. Quality of life, psychological functioning, and treatment satisfaction of men who have undergone penile prosthesis surgery following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 2017; 14:1612e20.
[22]	Caire AA, Boonjindasup A, Hellstrom WJ. Does a replacement or revision of an inflatable penile prosthesis lead to decreased patient satisfaction? Int J Impot Res 2011; 23:39e42.
[23]	Mondaini N, Cai T, Sarti E, Polloni G, Gavazzi A, Conti D, et al. A case series of patients who underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy with the simultaneous implant of a penile prosthesis: focus on penile length preservation. World J Mens Health 2018; 36:132e8.
[24]	Romero-Otero J, Rojas Cruz C, García-Gómez B, Geli JS, Polo JM, Castane ER, et al. Comparison of the patient and partner satisfaction with 700CX and Titan penile prostheses. Asian J Androl 2017; 19:321e5.