The use of the vacuum erection device in the management of erectile impotence.
A retrospective survey was conducted to assess the use, efficacy and acceptance of the Vacuum Erection Device (VED) among 60 impotent men not satisfied with intracavernosal injection therapy. Forty three (72%) men filled out the questionnaires. Thirty nine (81%) of the men abandoned the device, the main reason being that 'it did not work'. One possible explanation for this was patient selection, testing the VED on men who had previously found injection therapy unsatisfactory. Patients' attitudes to the device were unfavourable overall. Sixty four percent of men had at least one minor side effect using the VED, the most common being discomfort. The role of the partner for men using this form of treatment is unresolved. In this study, the VED was no more effective than injections in overcoming erectile dysfunction, but the relative advantages of either treatment needs to be addressed in controlled clinical trials.
Earle
C M
CM
Reproductive Medicine Research Institute, Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre, Nedlands, Western Australia.
Seah
M
M
Coulden
S E
SE
Stuckey
B G
BG
Keogh
E J
EJ
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000527:Alprostadil / Q000627:therapeutic use; D007172:Erectile Dysfunction / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D010410:Penile Erection; D010812:Physical Stimulation; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012747:Sexual Partners; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014618:Vacuum; D014665:Vasodilator Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use
D014665:Vasodilator Agents; D000527:Alprostadil