ABSTRACT
One of the various therapeutic options currently used in erectile dysfunction (ED), vacuum is a procedure that should not be ruled out as it can benefit certain types of patient. To understand each patient's response and usage readiness, a vacuum test is routinely performed by the andrology service as part of the diagnostic study. The present study conducted on 200 patients with ED of different etiologies, included the vacuum test and the intracavernous injection of vasoactive drugs. The assessment included the response to each methodology; which of the two systems offered better response; and initial usage readiness to each system. Positive response was 93% in the vacuum test, and 40% in the intracavernous injection. Improved erection was reported by 73% with vacuum and only 13% with the intracavernous injection. With regard to usage readiness 60.5% favoured vacuum and only 14.5% the intracavernous injection. It was apparent that vacuum is a highly effective methodology with very high initial usage readiness, although ultimate use may be limited for different reasons.
Subject(s)
Alprostadil/administration & dosage , Erectile Dysfunction/therapy , Vasodilator Agents/administration & dosage , Adult , Aged , Humans , Injections , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Satisfaction , Penis , VacuumABSTRACT
Entre las distintas opciones terapéuticas actuales en la disfunción eréctil (DE), el vacuum es un procedimiento que no hay que descartar y del que se pueden beneficiar determinados pacientes. Para conocer la respuesta y la disponibilidad de uso en cada paciente se realiza, de forma rutinaria, un test de vacuum en el gabinete de andrología durante el estudio diagnóstico. En este estudio se realizó, en 200 pacientes afectos de DE de diferente etiología, el test de vacuum y la inyección intracavernosa de fármacos vasoactivos, valorándose la respuesta ante cada una de estas metodologías, con cuál de los dos sistemas presentaban mejor respuesta y la disponibilidad de uso inicial para cada uno de estos dos sistemas. La respuesta del test de vacuum resultó positiva en el 93 por ciento de los casos, mientras que la inyección intracavernosa lo fue en el 40 por ciento. El 73 por ciento manifestó una mejor erección con el vacuum, y sólo el 13 por ciento refirió mejor erección con la inyección intracavernosa. En cuanto a la disponibilidad de uso inicial, el 60,5 por ciento se inclinó por el vacuum y sólo el 14,5 por ciento por la inyección intracavernosa. En este estudio se demuestra que el vacuum es una metodología altamente efectiva, y que su disponibilidad de uso es inicialmente muy alta, aunque finalmente su utilización se ve limitada a causa de distintos tipos de problemas. (AU)
Subject(s)
Middle Aged , Adult , Aged , Male , Humans , Vasodilator Agents , Vacuum , Patient Satisfaction , Penis , Alprostadil , Erectile Dysfunction , InjectionsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To study the utility of the PenInject 2.25 (SHL Medical AB), an instrument for intracavernous auto-injection of vasoactive drugs. METHODS: 61 males, aged 30-70 years, with erectile dysfunction were studied. The study comprised two groups: group A consisted of 26 patients previously treated with intracavernous injections using a syringe that were started on treatment with the self-injector, and group B consisted of 35 previously untreated patients that started treatment directly with the self-injector. Different data and questions on the facility of use and acceptance of the instrument were analyzed. Data evaluation were plotted on visual analog scales of 10 cm. A score of 5 or more showed good results and less than 5 was considered unfavorable. RESULTS: The positive aspects were facility of use, comfort, design of the self-injector, which scored higher than 7. The negative aspects were pain, fear, discomfort intensity, which scored below 4. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the PenInject self-injector in this group of patients improved the acceptability of intracavernous therapy for erectile dysfunction in comparison to the classical syringe.
