Comparative evaluation of physical characteristics of different inflatable penile prostheses

Paholo Barboglio RomoUrology Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;

Harshitha Prakash ChikkaturBiomedical Engineering Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;

Sahana BeldonaBiomedical Engineering Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;

Yooni YiUrology Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA;

Tim M. BrunsBiomedical Engineering Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; ;Biointerfaces Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Bahaa S. MalaebUrology Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Correspondence[email protected]

References

Brantley Scott F, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2:80–82.
PubMedGoogle Scholar
Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, et al. Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700 series inflatable penile prostheses: comparison of CX/CXM and ultrex cylinders. J Urol. 1997;158:1400–1402.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
Garber BB. Inflatable penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: an update. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008;5:133–144.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
Salem EA, Wilson SK, Neeb A, et al. Mechanical reliability of AMS 700 CX improved by parylene coating. J Sex Med. 2009;6:2615–2620.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
Chung E, Solomon M, Deyoung L, et al. 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;10:2855–2860.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
Otero J, Cruz C, Gómez B, et al. Comparison of the patient and partner satisfaction with 700CX and titan penile prostheses. Asian J Androl. 2017;19:321–325.
PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
Cruz N. Tratado De Andrología y Medicina Sexual. Madrid (Spain): Editorial Médica Panamericana; 2011. p. 156–174.
Google Scholar

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Comparative evaluation of physical characteristics of different inflatable penile prostheses

References

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature

Comparative evaluation of physical characteristics of different inflatable penile prostheses

References

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Related research

To cite this article:

Download citation

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Keep up to date