The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12894-015-0010-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Klaus-Peter Dieckmann and Petra Anheuser contributed equally to this work.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
KPD conceived the study, designed the study, made substantial contributions to analyzing and interpreting the data, main contributor to drafting of manuscript. PA contributed to patient enrolment, made substantial contributions to analyzing and interpreting the data, coordinated multicentric data collection. SS contributed substantially to patient enrolment, contributed to drafting of manuscript, BSH contributed substantially to patient enrolment, made substantial contributions to analyzing and interpreting the data. UP contributed to designing of the study, carried out the statistical analysis, contributed to drafting and revising the manuscript. PS contributed substantially to patient enrolment, contributed in analyzing data. CM contributed to conceiving and designing of the study, contributed to patient enrolment, contributed to coordination of multicentric data collection. MH contributed to patient enrolment, contributed to drafting and critically revising the manuscript. CGR participated in designing of the study and contributed substantially to establishing of the questionnaire, contributed to analyzing data, contributed to drafting of manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The loss of a testicle to cancer involves much emotional impact to young males. Little is known about the number of patients with testicular germ cell tumour (GCT) who would accept a testicular prosthesis. Also, knowledge about the satisfaction of implant recipients with the device is limited.
A retrospective chart analysis was performed on 475 consecutive GCT patients. Prior to orchiectomy, all patients were offered prosthesis insertion. Acceptance of implant was noted along with age, clinical stage, histology and year of surgery. 171 implant recipients were interviewed using an 18 item questionnaire to analyze satisfaction with the prosthesis. Statistical analysis involved calculating proportions and 95% confidence intervals. Multivariate analysis was performed to look for interrelations between the various items of satisfaction with the implant.
26.9% of the patients accepted a prosthesis. The acceptance rate was significantly higher in younger men. Over-all satisfaction with the implant was “very high” and “high” in 31.1% and 52.4%, respectively. 86% would decide again to have a prosthesis. Particular items of dis-satisfaction were: implant too firm (52.4%), shape inconvenient (15.4%), implant too small (23.8%), position too high (30.3%). Living with a permanent partner had no influence on patient ratings. Multivariate analysis disclosed numerous inter-relations between the particular items of satisfaction.
More than one quarter of GCT patients wish to have a testicular prosthesis. Over-all satisfaction with implants is high in more than 80% of patients. Thus, all patients undergoing surgery for GCT should be offered a testicular prosthesis. However, surgeons should be aware of specific items of dis-satisfaction, particularly shape, size and consistency of the implant and inconvenient high position of the implant within the scrotum. Appropriate preoperative counselling is paramount.
Additional file 1: Questionnaire.12894_2015_10_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Beer M, Kay R. Testicular prostheses. Urol Clin North Am. 1989;16(1):13313–8.
Girdansky J, Newman HF. Use of a vitallium testicular implant. Am J Surg. 1941;53:514. CrossRef
Prentiss RJ, Boatwright DC, Pennington RD, Hohn WF, Schwarzt MH. Testicular prosthesis: materials, methods and results. J Urol. 1963;90(2):208–10. PubMed
Lattimer JK, Vakili BF, Smith AM, Morishima A. A natural-feeling testicular prosthesis. J Urol. 1973;110(1):81–3. PubMed
Rosen JS, Benson RCJ. Testicular prostheses. Semin Urol. 1984;2(3):176–9. PubMed
Böhm WD, Biedermann M, Hackel W, Baumann I, Knoch HG. Hodenprothesen-Chirurgie. Ergebnisse einer ambulanten klinischen Prüfstudie. Z Urol Nephrol. 1989;82:253–8. PubMed
Weissbach L, Janssen PL, Bach D. Die Implantation von Hodenprothesen unter Berücksichtigung psychischer Aspekte. Urologe A. 1979;18(3):151–6. PubMed
Robinson R, Tait C, Clarke N, Ramani V. Is it safe to insert a testicular prosthesis at the time of radical orchidectomy for testis cancer - an Audit of 904 Men Undergoing Radical Orchidectomy. BJU Int 2014, Aug 28. doi:10.1111/bju.12920. [Epub ahead of print].
Motzer R, Agarwal N, Beard C, Bhayani S, Bolger GB, Buyyounouski MK, et al. Testicular cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10(4):502–35. PubMed
Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS. Statistical methods in medical research. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific; 2002. CrossRef
Schmidt S, Wagner W, Ruf CG. Evaluation der persönlichen Entscheidungskriterien für oder gegen die Implantation einer Hodenprothese. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol. 2013;10(5):309. Abstract.
Petersen W, Hartmann M. Erfahrungen mit Hodenprothesen. Sexualmedizin. 1992;21:168–72.
Rieker PP. How should a man with testicular cancer be counselled and what information is available to him? Semin Urol Oncol. 1996;14:17–23. PubMed
Auberget JL, Bourlaud G, Timbal Y. Testicular prosthesis. Study of complications, apropos of 63 cases].[Article in French]. J Urol (Paris). 1989;95(8):505–6.
Foster RS. Role of urologist in testis cancer management. Editorial Comment. J Urol. 2013;186:1251.
- Testicular prostheses in patients with testicular cancer - acceptance rate and patient satisfaction
Christian G Ruf
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie
Meistgelesene Bücher in der Urologie
Mail Icon II