You have accessJournal of UrologyDiscussed Poster, Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 1:00 - 5:00 pm1 Apr 20051266: A Multi-Center Study: Safety, Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction Results of the Two-Piece Ambicor™ Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP) Laurence A. Levine, Keith O'Reilly, Ronald F. Tutrone, David G. McLeod, Ronald W. Lewis, Gerald H. Jordan, Marc Siegelbaum, Claire C. Yang, Charles M. Feinstein, J. Francois Eid, Wayne J.G. Hellstrom, George T. Ho, Abraham Morgentaler, Arnold Melman, Robert Hackler, and Stewart W. McCallum Laurence A. LevineLaurence A. Levine More articles by this author , Keith O'ReillyKeith O'Reilly More articles by this author , Ronald F. TutroneRonald F. Tutrone More articles by this author , David G. McLeodDavid G. McLeod More articles by this author , Ronald W. LewisRonald W. Lewis More articles by this author , Gerald H. JordanGerald H. Jordan More articles by this author , Marc SiegelbaumMarc Siegelbaum More articles by this author , Claire C. YangClaire C. Yang More articles by this author , Charles M. FeinsteinCharles M. Feinstein More articles by this author , J. Francois EidJ. Francois Eid More articles by this author , Wayne J.G. HellstromWayne J.G. Hellstrom More articles by this author , George T. HoGeorge T. Ho More articles by this author , Abraham MorgentalerAbraham Morgentaler More articles by this author , Arnold MelmanArnold Melman More articles by this author , Robert HacklerRobert Hackler More articles by this author , and Stewart W. McCallumStewart W. McCallum More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(18)35411-9AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "1266: A Multi-Center Study: Safety, Efficacy and Patient Satisfaction Results of the Two-Piece Ambicor™ Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP)." The Journal of Urology, 173(4S), p. 343 © 2016 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 173Issue 4SApril 2005Page: 343 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016 by American Urological AssociationMetricsAuthor Information Laurence A. Levine More articles by this author Keith O'Reilly More articles by this author Ronald F. Tutrone More articles by this author David G. McLeod More articles by this author Ronald W. Lewis More articles by this author Gerald H. Jordan More articles by this author Marc Siegelbaum More articles by this author Claire C. Yang More articles by this author Charles M. Feinstein More articles by this author J. Francois Eid More articles by this author Wayne J.G. Hellstrom More articles by this author George T. Ho More articles by this author Abraham Morgentaler More articles by this author Arnold Melman More articles by this author Robert Hackler More articles by this author Stewart W. McCallum More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

Technical complications requiring frequent surgical revision of the most commonly used penile component prosthesis have led to the development of a new inflatable device that has been implanted in 202 patients. This hydraulic device provides excellent functional qualities; no connector separations, aneurysms, or ruptures have been encountered in these patients. Reoperations became necessary in 8 per cent of these patients. Cosmetic and functional results are good, and patient acceptance has been excellent.

Forty-six patients have undergone implantation of a penile prosthesis using the Mentor inflatable device. All patients are at least six months postimplantation, with the average follow-up being twenty-one months. Six patients have required reoperation due to technical problems, but there have been no mechanical failures. This low mechanical failure rate greatly enhances the attractiveness of this type of penile prosthesis when comparing it with the semirigid devices.

Ileal loop diversion is only considered for persistent or progressive hydronephrosis (failed conservative treatment directed at the bladder). This conservative approach is based on a comparison of our ongoing prospective mortality study on 470 paraplegics plus 175 spinal cord patients that have survived at least 20 years v. an updated literature review of ileal conduits performed for benign disease.

Two cases are presented to illustrate the value of gallium-67 scanning in localizing renal pus formation in patients with evidence of bilateral renal infection.

No AccessJournal of UrologyLetters to the editor1 Aug 1976Re: An Attempt to Understand and to Treat Voiding Dysfunctions During Rehabilitation of the Bladder in Spinal Cord Injury Patients, by Inder Perkash, J. Urol., 115: 36-40, 1976 Robert H. Hackler Robert H. HacklerRobert H. Hackler More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)58777-7AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Re: An Attempt to Understand and to Treat Voiding Dysfunctions During Rehabilitation of the Bladder in Spinal Cord Injury Patients, by Inder Perkash, J. Urol., 115: 36-40, 1976." The Journal of Urology, 116(2), p. 263 © 1976 by The American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 116Issue 2August 1976Page: 263 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 1976 by The American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Robert H. Hackler More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

A papillary renal cell carcinoma developed in this patient in the same position that six years previously had undergone unroofing of a benign cyst. The discussion includes a brief review of the relationship between renal cyst and carcinoma.

In recent years the survival rate in the patient with spinal cord injury is improving. Renal failure remains the principal cause of death if the patient has a poor (unbalanced) bladder. In the good reflex bladder group, just as many succumb from nonrenal causes. In most of the patients with upper motor neuron lesions, a reflex bladder develops, and with the use of intermittent catherization, external sphincterotomy, and sacral rhizotomy the bladder should remain catheter free. Irreversible vesicoureteral ref ex subjects some patients to Foley catheter drainage. Vesicoureteroplasty is indicated if the patient has a good reflex bladder. Transureteroureterostomy has its place in failed vesicoureteroplasty. Under certain conditions, an ileal conduit is definitely of benefit. We are conservative in recommending an ileal conduit, since deterioration of many renal units can be reversed by treatment directed toward the bladder. Severe hydronephrosis is best handled with loop nephrostomies.