CLINICAL OUTCOMES AND PATIENT SATISFACTION – MALLEABLE VS. SEMI-RIGID PENILE PROSTHESES IN UZBEKISTAN

Azamjon Makhmudov; Shukhrat Abbosov; Jamshid Rikhsiboev; Shavkat Shavakhabov; Shukhrat Mukhtarov

Авторы

Azamjon Makhmudov Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Department of Urology, Tashkent State Medical University. Автор
Shukhrat Abbosov PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Urology, Tashkent State Medical University. Автор
Jamshid Rikhsiboev PhD, Assistant, Department of Urology, Tashkent State Medical University. Автор
Shavkat Shavakhabov PhD, Deputy Director for Science at the “Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Urology.” Автор
Shukhrat Mukhtarov Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Director of the the “Republican Specialized Scientific and Practical Medical Center of Urology.” Автор

Ключевые слова:

Erectile dysfunction, penile prosthesis, semi-rigid models

Аннотация

Erectile dysfunction (ED) severely impairs male quality of life, and penile prosthesis implantation remains the definitive treatment in refractory cases. This study addresses the urgent need to comparatively evaluate clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between semi-rigid and malleable penile prostheses within Uzbekistan’s evolving urological practice. A retrospective analysis of 96 patients (46 semi-rigid, 50 malleable) was conducted, assessing complication rates and utilizing the standardized EDITS questionnaire. Multivariate statistical modeling (ANCOVA, logistic regression) was applied to control for baseline covariates like age. The results demonstrate that malleable prostheses drastically reduce complication rates (3.7% vs. 28.3%) and yield significantly higher adjusted patient and partner satisfaction scores (93.01 vs. 67.14) compared to older semi-rigid models. The practical contribution of this study is the mathematical justification for shifting clinical protocols toward modern malleable implants, ultimately optimizing surgical safety and improving postoperative patient quality of life in Uzbekistan

##plugins.themes.default.displayStats.downloads##

##plugins.themes.default.displayStats.noStats##

Библиографические ссылки

[1]. Korenman, S. G. (2004). Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction. Endocrine, 23(2–3), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1385/endo:23:2-3:087

[2]. Braun, M., Wassmer, G., Klotz, T., Reifenrath, B., Mathers, M., & Engelmann, U. (2000). Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction: results of the 'Cologne Male Survey'. International Journal of Impotence Research, 12(6), 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900622

[3]. Chung, E., & Wang, J. (2023). State-of-art review of current malleable penile prosthesis devices in the commercial market. Therapeutic Advances in Urology, 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872231179008

[4]. Manfredi, C., Fortier, É., Faix, A., & Martínez-Salamanca, J. I. (2021). Penile Implant Surgery Satisfaction Assessment. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 18(5), 868–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.03.007

[5]. Althof, S. E., Corty, E. W., Levine, S. B., Levine, F., Burnett, A. L., McVary, K., Stecher, V., & Seftel, A. D. (1999). EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology, 53(4), 793–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00582-2

[6]. Thomalla, J. V., Thompson, S. T., Rowland, R. G., & Mulcahy, J. J. (1987). Infectious complications of penile prosthetic implants. The Journal of Urology, 138(1), 65–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42991-0

[7]. Habous, M., Omar, M., Farag, M., Abdelwahab, O., Laban, O., Binsaleh, S., Mulhall, J. P., Ralph, D., & Aziz, M. (2022). Malleable Penile Implant Rod Diameter Predicts Complications and Patient Satisfaction. Sexual Medicine, 10(2), 100486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2021.100486