Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Research
  • Published:

Satisfaction with the malleable penile prosthesis among couples from the Middle East: is it different from that reported elsewhere?

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 16, pages 175–180 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

No studies from the Middle East have investigated the psychosexual aspects of penile prosthesis. Therefore, several questions were used herein to address satisfaction with the use of malleable penile prosthesis among couples from this geographic area, as an option to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). A total of 50 patients who underwent the insertion of AMS 650 and Acu-form penile prostheses and their partners were evaluated with a retrospective clinical record review, as well as patient and partner questionnaires. In all, 70% of the patients and 57% of the partners were satisfied with the prosthesis. There was an increase in frequency of intercourse, sexual desire, and ability to achieve orgasm. Dislike for the device was the most common cause for nonsatisfaction of patients with the device, while sense of unnaturalness was that for partners. Results from this evaluation highlight the obvious need for proper preoperative counseling for both the patient and his partner to minimize unrealistic expectations. They also emphasize the importance of careful screening of both psychosocial and psychosexual aspects of the couple based on cultural ethnic background, since these are important predictors of the therapeutic outcome of prosthesis insertion. Efforts to extend information about ED to the public may be useful to reduce patients' exaggerated embarrassment about this problem and make their partners actively involved in the treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Small MP . Small–Carrion penile prosthesis: a report on 160 cases and review of the literature. 1978. J Urol 2002; 167: 2357–2360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Carson CC . Implantation of semi-rigid rod penile prosthesis. Urol Clin North Am 1993; 1: 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Burns-Cox N, Burston A, Gingell JC . Fifteen years experience of penile prosthesis insertion. Int J Impot Res 1997; 9: 211–216.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Levine LA, Lenting EL . Use of normal nocturnal penile tumescence and rigidity in the evaluation of male erectile dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am 1995; 22: 775–788.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McLaren RH, Barrett DM . Patient and partner satisfaction with the AMS 700 penile prosthesis. J Urol 1992; 147: 62–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Furlow WL, Barrett DM . Inflatable penile prosthesis: new device design and patient–partner satisfaction. Urology 1984; 24: 559–563.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Beutler LE et al. Women's satisfaction with partners' penile implant. Inflatable vs non-inflatable prosthesis. Urology 1984; 24: 552–558.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Runganga A, Pitts M, McMaster J . The use of herbal and other agents to enhance sexual experience. Soc Sci Med 1992; 35: 1037–1042.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Moyad MA . Dietary supplements and other alternative medicines for erectile dysfunction. What do I tell my patients? Urol Clin North Am 2002; 29: 11–22, vii.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Perabo FG, Steiner G, Albers P, Muller SC . Treatment of penile strangulation caused by constricting devices. Urology 2002; 59: 137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. El-Sendiony MF . The problem of cultural specificity of mental illness: the Egyptian mental disease and the Zar ceremony. Aust N Z J Psych 1974; 8: 103–107.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rahman F . Health and Medicine in the Islamic Tradition. Kazi: Chicago, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jarrow JP, Nana-Sinkam P, Sabbagh M, Eskew A . Outcome analysis of goal directed therapy for impotence. J Urol 1996; 155: 1609–1612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Krauss DJ et al. Use of malleable penile prosthesis in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: a prospective study of post-operative adjustment. J Urol 1989; 142: 988–991.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fallon B, Ghanem H . Sexual performance and satisfaction with penile prosthesis in impotence of various etiologies. Int J Impot Res 1990; 2: 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, Bergamaschi F, Rigatti P . Patient and partner satisfaction with semirigid penile prosthesis for Peyronie's disease: a 5-year follow-up study. J Urol 1993; 150: 1819–1821.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Denny NW, Field JK, Quadagno D . Sex differences in sexual needs and desires. Arch Sex Behav 1984; 13: 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carson CC . Complications of penile prostheses and complex implantations. In: Carson CC, Kirby RS, Goldstein I (eds). Textbook of Erectile Dysfunction. Isis Medical Media: Oxford, 1999, pp 435–450.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Elchalal U, Ben-Ami B, Brzezinski A . Female circumcision: the peril remains. Br J Urol 1999; 83: 103–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gruenbaum E . The Islamic movement, development and health education: recent changes in the health of rural women in central Sudan. Soc Sci Med 1991; 33: 637–645.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Collins Jr GF, Kinder BN . Adjustment following surgical implantation of a penile prosthesis: a critical review. J Sex Marital Ther 1984; 10: 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schover LR, von Eschenbach AC . Sex therapy and the penile prosthesis: a synthesis. J Sex Marital Ther 1985; 11: 57–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kramarsky-Binkhorst S . Female partner perception of Small–Carrion implant. Urology 1978; 12: 545–548.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tiefer L, Pedersen B, Melman A . Psychological follow-up of penile prosthesis implant: patients and partners. J Sex Marital Ther 1988; 14: 184–201.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Professor Susumu Kagawa, Head of Urology Department, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan, is gratefully acknowledged for his continuous support during this study. Stacy Kopka and Usama Khater, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, are greatly appreciated for the English edition of this manuscript. Some of the results of this study were presented at the 15th World Congress of Sexology, Paris, France, June 24–28, 2001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Alexandria Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria, Egypt

    N Salama

Authors
  1. N Salama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N Salama.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Salama, N. Satisfaction with the malleable penile prosthesis among couples from the Middle East: is it different from that reported elsewhere?. Int J Impot Res 16, 175–180 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901150

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901150

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links