The present invention relates to implantable prostheses. In particular, but not by way of limitation, the present invention relates to implantable malleable (non-inflatable) penile prostheses.
Disclosed is a prosthetic device. The prosthetic device comprises a column. The column comprises resilient material. The column comprises a central region between the proximal and distal ends. The central region has a reduced diameter relative to the proximal and distal ends. Discs protrude from the central region.
In one embodiment, the column 102 is formed as a single unitary, seamless component that is molded, cast, or machined to final shape. This unitary manufacturing method is economical. In another embodiment, the column 102 is formed of end caps (tip extenders) 124, 126 that join a central body 128 along joint lines 130, 132. The joint lines 130, 132 are annular and form a snap attachment profile between the column and the end caps 124, 126. The use of end caps 124, 126 of different lengths and shapes allows the prosthetic device 100 to be conveniently sized by a physician to vary the cylinder length while maintaining a central body 128 that is common to the different sizes and shapes. Alternatively, the central body 128 and a first end cap 124 can formed as a seamless unitary body, and a second end cap 126 can have different lengths and shapes. In this alternative embodiment, rear tip extenders (RTEs) can be used as the second end caps 126.
As illustrated in
Bending tends to compress resilient material on the inside of a bend, and the compressed material tends to exert a springback force. The term “springback” refers to the amount of a return movement of a bent column after a bending force is removed. Springback causes a column that is bent into a position (either a straight or bent position) to lose part of the bend after the column is released. Springback is an undesirable property that adversely affects concealability. Springback requires the user to learn to bend the column past a desired position in order for it to have the desired position after springback, or requires the user to bend the column multiple times in order to obtain a concealed position. As illustrated, on the inside of the bend at locations 202, 204, annular grooves have eliminated material which would otherwise be compressed. The grooves at locations 202, 204 reduce springback due to avoiding compression of material.
Bending tends to stretch (place in tension) resilient material on the outside of the bend, and the stretched material tends to exert a springback force. As illustrated, on the outside of the bend at locations 206, 208, annular grooves have eliminated material which would otherwise be stretched. The grooves at locations 206, 208 reduce springback due to avoiding stretching of material.
The material remaining inside the grooves (such as grooves 112, 114), in other words the material within diameter D1 is close to a main cylinder axis (along a bent central axis 103) for bending where both compression and stretching tends to be reduced. There is thus little contribution to springback from the material within diameter D1.
The grooves have a combination of width and depth (groove aspect ratio) that provides a desirable wide bending angle at each groove before adjacent disc edges bend far enough to contact one another.
The prosthesis 100 has overall desirable large girth characteristics associated with the larger diameter D2 and the multiple discs 118, 120, 122, in combination with the desirable small springback characteristics associated with the smaller diameter D1. The desired large girth characteristics are maintained through the region 104 by the presence of the discs 118, 120, 122.
The semi-rigid rod types of penile prosthesis disclosed offer a patient a device with good column strength and rigidity. The ability to conceal the device by positioning these rods in a bent configuration and remaining in that concealed position is provided.
The internal core structure can comprise wires and/or fabric and/or plastic components (interlocking rings.) The two ends can have profiles 130 that would accept snap attachment rear tip extenders, for finer length dimensioning to better fit the patient's anatomy.
The addition of discs (hubs or rings) along a smaller diameter center section allows the rod to maintain a more concealed position for the patient. The discs (hubs or rings), with or without an outer sheath, would give the rod an outward appearance and sensation of being an isodiametric rod. Existing internal rod components (AMS 600, AMS 600M, AMS 650, DURA II) and rear tip extenders (AMS 700 IPP or AMS Ambicor) can be adapted for use in the embodiments. The prosthesis can have a sheath or “skin” that would give the appearance of the rod being isodiametric. The ends of the rods could have snap attachment profiles to accept the existing AMS 700 RTEs. Inside cores from the AMS 600, AMS 600M, AMS 650, DURA II can be adapted for use.
Although the present invention has been described with reference to preferred embodiments, workers skilled in the art will recognize that changes may be made in form and detail without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
The present application claimed priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/988,298, filed Nov. 15, 2007, and entitled “Prosthesis with Bendable Central Region.” The identified provisional patent application is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3832996 | Kalnberz | Sep 1974 | A |
3893456 | Small et al. | Jul 1975 | A |
3987789 | Timm et al. | Oct 1976 | A |
3991752 | Gerow | Nov 1976 | A |
4066073 | Finney et al. | Jan 1978 | A |
4151840 | Barrington | May 1979 | A |
4177805 | Tudoriu | Dec 1979 | A |
4187839 | Nuwayser et al. | Feb 1980 | A |
4204530 | Finney | May 1980 | A |
4244370 | Furlow et al. | Jan 1981 | A |
4345339 | Muller et al. | Aug 1982 | A |
4353360 | Finney et al. | Oct 1982 | A |
4392562 | Burton | Jul 1983 | A |
4411260 | Koss | Oct 1983 | A |
4411261 | Finney | Oct 1983 | A |
4483331 | Trick | Nov 1984 | A |
4517967 | Timm et al. | May 1985 | A |
4522198 | Timm et al. | Jun 1985 | A |
4541420 | Timm et al. | Sep 1985 | A |
4545081 | Nestor et al. | Oct 1985 | A |
4594998 | Porter et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
4619251 | Helms et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
4665902 | Goff et al. | May 1987 | A |
4666428 | Mattioli et al. | May 1987 | A |
4669456 | Masters | Jun 1987 | A |
4693719 | Franko et al. | Sep 1987 | A |
4699128 | Hemmeter | Oct 1987 | A |
4807608 | Levius | Feb 1989 | A |
4881531 | Timm et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
4899737 | Lazarian | Feb 1990 | A |
4988357 | Koss | Jan 1991 | A |
5050592 | Olmedo | Sep 1991 | A |
5067485 | Cowen | Nov 1991 | A |
5167611 | Cowan | Dec 1992 | A |
5176708 | Frey et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5283390 | Hubis et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5445594 | Elist | Aug 1995 | A |
5468213 | Polyak | Nov 1995 | A |
5509891 | DeRidder | Apr 1996 | A |
5512033 | Westrum et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5553379 | Westrum, Jr. et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
6579230 | Yachia et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6600108 | Mydur et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
20040193283 | Rioux | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20050014993 | Mische | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20080103353 | Jahns et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0137752 | Aug 1989 | EP |
0774935 | Jul 1995 | EP |
2151484 | Jul 1985 | GB |
WO8601398 | Mar 1986 | WO |
WO9604865 | Feb 1996 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Acu-Form Penile Prosthesis, Mentor, 1 page Aug. 1997. |
Agrawal, Wineet, et al., An Audit of Implanted Penile Prostheses in the UK, BJU International pp. 393-395 (2006). |
Akand, Murat Mechanical Failure With Malleable Penile Prosthesis, J. Urol. 70: 1007.e11-1007.e12 (2007). |
AMS Malleable 600.TM. American Medical Systems Publication 30915, 1983. |
Anafarta, Kadri, Clinical Experience With Inflatable and Malleable Penile Implants in 104 Patients, Urol. Int. 56: 100-104 (1996). |
Benson RC Jr, Patterson DE, Barrett DM. Long-term results with the Jonas malleable penile prosthesis. J Urol. Nov. 1985;134(5):899-901. |
Burns-Cox, N., Fifteen Years Experience of Penile Prosthesis Insertion, International J. Impotence Res. (1997) 9, 211-216. |
Chiang, Han-Sun, 10 Years of Experience With Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Taiwanese Patients, J. Urol. vol. 163: 476-480 (2000). |
Choi, Hyung Ki, Ten Years of Experience With Various Penile Prosthesis in Korean, Yasel Medical J. Wol. 35, No. 2, (1994) 209-217. |
Dorfinger T, Bruskewitz R. AMS malleable penile prosthesis. Urology. Dec. 1986;28(6):480-5. |
Durazi, Mohammed et al., Penile Prosthesis Implantation for Treatment of Postpriapism Erectile Dysfunction, Urol. J. 2008:5:115-9. |
Fathey, Ahmad, Experience With Tube (PROMEDON_ Malleable Penile Implant, Urol. Int. 2007; 79:244-247. |
Ferguson, Kenneth, Prospective Long-Term Results and Quality-Of-Life- Assessment After Dura-II Penile Prosthesis Placement, Urol. 61(2) 437-441 (2003). |
Fogarty, JD, Cutaneous Temperature Measurements in Men With Penile Prostheses: A Comparison Study, Int. J. of Impotence Res. (2005) 17, 506-509. |
Henry, Gerard D., Advances in Penile Prosthesis Design, Curr Sex Health report 2007;4:15-19. |
Jonas U. [Silicone-silver penis prosthesis (Jonas-Eska), long-term reconstruction. J Urol. Sep. 1998;160(3 Pt 2):1164-8. |
Kardar, A.H., An Unusual Complication of Penile Prosthesis Following Urethroplasty, Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 36: 89-90, 2002. |
Kaufman JJ, Raz S. Use of implantable prostheses for the treatment of urinary incontinence and impotence. Am J Surg. Aug. 1975;130(2):244-50. |
Khoudary, Kevin, Design Considerations in Penile Prostheses: The American Medical Systems Product Line, J. Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, 7(1):55-64 (1997). |
Kimoto, Yasusuke et al., JSSM Guidleines for Erectile Dysfunction, Int. J. Urol (2008) 15, 564-76. |
Krauss, Dennis J., Use of the Malleable Penile Prosthesis in the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: A Prospective Study of Postoperative Adjustment, J. Urol. vol. 142: 988-991 (1989). |
Lazarou, Stephen, Technical Advances in Penile Prostheses, J. Long-Term effects of Medical Implants, 16(3):235-247 (2006J. |
Leriche, Albert, et al., Long-Term Outcome of Forearm Flee-Flap Phalloplasy in the Treatment of Transexualism, BJU Int. (2008) 101, 1297-1300. |
Maul Judd, Experience With the AMS 600 Malleable Penile Prosthesis, J Urol. 135:929-931 (1986). |
Mentor Urology Products, 18 pages (May 1998). |
Merino, G. Atienza, Penile Prosthesis for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction, Actas Urol. Esp. 2006: 30 (2): 159-169. |
Minervini, Andrea, Outcome of Penile Prosthesis Implantation for Treating Erectile Dysfunction: Experience With 504 Procedures, BJU International 97:129-133, (2005). |
Montague, Drogo, Clinical Guidelines Panel on Erectile Dysfunction: Summary Report on the Treatment of Organic Erectile Dysfunction, J. Urol. 156:2007-2011 (1996). |
Montague, Drogo, Contemporary Aspects of Penile Prosthesis Implantation, urol Int. 2003: 70: 141-146. |
Montague, Drogo, Current Status of Penile Prosthesis Implantation, Urology Reports 2000, 1: 291-296. |
Montague, Drogo, Experience With Semirigid Rod and Inflatable Penile Prostheses, J. Urol. 129:967-968, 1983. |
Montague, Drogo, Penile Prosthesis Implantation for End-Stage Erectile Dysfunction After Radical Prostatectomy, Reviews in Urol. vol. 7 Suppl. 2 S51-S57 2005. |
Montague, Drogo, Penile Prosthesis Implantation, 712-719 1994. |
Montague, Drogo, Surgical Approaches for Penile Prostheses Implantation: Penoscrotal Vs Infrapubic, International J. Impotence Res. (2003) 15, Suppl. 5 , S134-S135. |
Morey, Allen, et al, Immediate Insertion of a Semirigid Penile Prosthesis For Refractory Ischemic Priapism, Military Medicine, 172, 11:1211, 2007. |
Mulcahy, John, Another Look at the Role of Penile Prostheses in the Management of Impotence, Urology Annual 11, pp. 169-185 (1997). |
Natali, Alessandro, et al., Penile Implantation in Europe: Successes and Complications With W53 Implants in Italy and Germany, J Sex. Med. 2008;5:1503-12. |
Paula, B. G. Revision Surgery for Penile Implants, Int. J. Impotence res. (1994) 6, 17-23. |
Pearman RO. Insertion of a silastic penile prosthesis for the treatment of organic sexual impotence. J Urol. May 1972;107(5):802-6. |
Randrup, Eduardo, Penile Implant Surgery: Rear Tip Extender That Stays Behind, Urology 1992 34,1 p. 87. |
Rhee, Eugene, Technique for Concomitant Implantation of the Penile Prosthesis With the Male Sling, J. Urol. 173: 925-927 (2006). |
Salama, Nadar, Satisfaction With the Malleable Penile Prosthesis Among Couples From the Middle East: Is It Different From That Reported Elsewhere?, Int. J. Impotence Res. 16:175-180 (2004). |
Simmons, M, et al., Penile Prosthesis Implantation: Past, Present and Future, Int. J. Impotence Res. (2008) 20, 437-44. |
Small, Michael, Small-Carrion Penile Prosthesis: A Report on 160 Cases and Review of the Literature, J. Urol. vol. 167, 2357-2360, Jun. 2002. |
Smith, Christopher, Management of Impending Penile Prosthesis Erosion With a Polytetrafluoroethylene Distal Wind Sock Graft, J. Urol. vol. 160: 2037-2040, (1998). |
Stein, Avi et al., Malleable Penile Prosthesis Removal Leaving Behind the Rear Tip Extenders: A Clinical Presentation, Urol. Int. 50:119-120 (1993). |
Surgical Protocol, Mentor 5 pages Sep. 1997. |
The AMS Hydroflex Self-Contained Penile Prosthesis, American Medical Systems Publication 50513 (1985). |
Yoo JJ, Lee I, Atala A. Cartilage rods as a potential material for penile reconstruction. J Urol. Sep. 1998;160(3 Pt 2):1164-8; discussion 1178. |
Zerman, Dirk-Henrik, et al. Penile Prosthetic Surgery in Neurologically Impaired Patients: Long-Term Follow-Up, J Urol 175: 1041-1044. (2006). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090132044 A1 | May 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60988298 | Nov 2007 | US |