Malleable Penile Implant Is an Effective Therapeutic Option in Men With Peyronie's Disease and Erectile Dysfunction

BACKGROUND: The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is typically the preferred implant for Peyronie's disease (PD) and malleable penile prostheses (MPPs) have been discouraged. Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness and patient satisfaction of the MPP vs IPP in patients with PD. METHODS: Men with PD and erectile dysfunction who elected for penile implant surgery constituted the study population. Preoperatively, demographic and comorbidity parameters were recorded. Curvature was measured with a goniometer at maximum rigidity after intracavernosal injection of a vasoactive agent. Postoperatively, overall satisfaction was measured at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months on 5-point Likert scale from 1 (dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). RESULTS: 166 men with a mean age of 59 ± 10 years were analyzed. The mean preoperative curvature in the entire cohort was 65° (range = 30–130°). 94% of patients with MPP had total resolution of their curvature at the end of the operation, whereas 8 patients (6%) had residual curvature (25–40°). In the IPP group 25 of 30 (83.3%) had a straight penis at the end of surgery, whereas 5 of 30 (16.7%) had residual curvature, with the mean magnitude being 33° in the MPP group and 30° in the IPP group. 86% of all patients had diabetes. There were no differences between the 2 implant groups in age, hemoglobin A1c, body mass index, or smoking status. The mean patient satisfaction was 4.42 ± 0.70 (range = 2–5) and there was no difference between the 2 groups. The mean follow-up period was 23.4 months (range = 6–29 months). CONCLUSION: We found that the MPP is as effective as the IPP in curvature correction in patients with PD, with similar patient satisfaction for the 2 groups. Habous M, Farag M, Tealab A, et al. Malleable Penile Implant Is an Effective Therapeutic Option in Men With Peyronie's Disease and Erectile Dysfunction. Sex Med 2018;6:24–29

Concurrent validity and reliability of suicide risk assessment instruments: a meta-analysis of 20 instruments across 27 international cohorts.

OBJECTIVE\nMETHOD\nRESULTS\nCONCLUSIONS\nA major limitation of current suicide research is the lack of power to identify robust correlates of suicidal thoughts or behavior. Variation in suicide risk assessment instruments used across cohorts may represent a limitation to pooling data in international consortia.\nHere, we examine this issue through two approaches: (a) an extensive literature search on the reliability and concurrent validity of the most commonly used instruments and (b) by pooling data (N ∼ 6,000 participants) from cohorts from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics Through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Major Depressive Disorder and ENIGMA-Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviour working groups, to assess the concurrent validity of instruments currently used for assessing suicidal thoughts or behavior.\nWe observed moderate-to-high correlations between measures, consistent with the wide range (κ range: 0.15-0.97; r range: 0.21-0.94) reported in the literature. Two common multi-item instruments, the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale and the Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation were highly correlated with each other (r = 0.83). Sensitivity analyses identified sources of heterogeneity such as the time frame of the instrument and whether it relies on self-report or a clinical interview. Finally, construct-specific analyses suggest that suicide ideation items from common psychiatric questionnaires are most concordant with the suicide ideation construct of multi-item instruments.\nOur findings suggest that multi-item instruments provide valuable information on different aspects of suicidal thoughts or behavior but share a modest core factor with single suicidal ideation items. Retrospective, multisite collaborations including distinct instruments should be feasible provided they harmonize across instruments or focus on specific constructs of suicidality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).Education and Child Studie