Status Plus

abstract

abstract

241

Comprehensive in-vivo biomechanical study of IPPs yields interesting results

Wallen, JJ1; Barrera, EV2; Ge, L2; Carrion, RE3; Pastuzak, AW 4; Perito, PE5; Hakky, TS 6

1: Florida Hospital - Tampa, United States; 2: Rice University - Houston, United States; 3: University of Southern Florida - Tampa, United States; 4: Baylor - Houston, United States; 5: Perito Urology - Coral Gables, United States; 6: Advanced Urology - Atlanta, United States

Objectives: Due to the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) we have seen a new era ushered in the management of erectile dysfunction. A growing interest in the biomechanical properties of IPP is leading to systematic studies of the ex-vivo and in-vivo evaluation of the inflated rigidity of the IPP and comparative properties of different implants.

Materials and Methods: This study is a comprehensive in-vivo biomechanical study of the 3 most popular IPPs assessed by longitudinal (column compression), Horizontal (modified cantilever deflection) and flexure (3-point bending) methods. IPPs were surgically placed in three cadavers via an infrapubic approach. The biomechanical measurements were obtained in a bind testing study performed by engineers from Rice University. Two pressures for the implants were chosen and 10 implant conditions were assessed based on mechanical measurements and visual and audio recordings of the analysis. Funding for this study was obtained from Coloplast Corporation. 

Results: Compression, cantilever, and bend data were acquired for the in vivo IPP. Analysis was assessed based on kink formation in compression, max loading in cantilever testing and 3-point bend testing. Rigidity was also assessed based on plotted slopes indicating stiffness, and the differences in slope change, kinking, and IPP buckling. Data was correlated to vaginal insertion strength, horizontal load strength, and prosthesis rigidity.

 Conclusions: The testing provided significant measurements for assessing the IPP properties in three different cadavers. Outcomes showed clear differences in the three IPPs and identified their strengths and weaknesses. While they showed differences in rigidity and insertion strength, others showed more flexure.

Disclosure:

Work supported by industry: yes, by Coloplast Corp (industry funding only - investigator initiated and executed study). The presenter or any of the authors act as a consultant, employee (part time or full time) or shareholder of an industry.

Go Back