Penile constriction devices: a randomized survey study to compare preferences between two medical-grade devices.

Abstract

Background: Penile constriction devices offer a noninvasive approach to enhance the sexual experience and as the variety of penile constriction devices increases, it is crucial to assess patient preferences and device effectiveness to provide insights into their clinical utility.

Aim: We aimed to compare the preferences for and effectiveness of two medical-grade penile constriction devices: Eddie by Giddy and FirmTech.

Methods: Between May and July of 2023, males were recruited via social media and prospectively enrolled into an Institutional Review Board-approved, randomized, questionnaire-based study. Upon enrollment, the participants completed the Sexual Health Inventory for Men and Androgen Deficiency in Aging Males questionnaires. Participants were randomized to which device they received first. They used the device twice either during masturbation or intercourse in a two-week timeframe. Once utilized, the participants completed a 17-question, Likert scale, device satisfaction questionnaire, in which lower numbers indicated positive responses. The process was repeated with the second device. T-test and Chi-Square Analysis were run for statistical analysis.

Outcomes: The primary outcomes of this study were patient-reported device satisfaction and efficacy and the secondary outcome was the device preference for patients with and without erectile dysfunction.

Results: Fifty men were enrolled and 49 completed the study. The average age was 40 years old. Of the participants, 80% recommend the FirmTech device compared to 53% who recommend the Eddie by Giddy device (P = 0.0026). The FirmTech device was overall easier to put on both flaccid and erect (P = 0.0308 and 0.0002), was more comfortable, had better stretch, and was easier to adjust (P = 0.087, <0.0001, and 0.0119, respectively). The FirmTech device had a better overall impression amongst the participants (P = 0.0249). Eddie by Giddy was felt to improve erectile firmness more in those with ED than in those without (P = 0.0178).

Clinical implications: This study adds to the current literature on penile constriction devices that better guide providers as they counsel patients on these devices to enhance sexual function.

Strengths and limitations: The strength of this study is that this is a prospective randomized crossover study. The limitations of this study are that this is a single center study based on patient reported outcomes.

Conclusion: The FirmTech device performed better than the Eddie by Giddy with respect to overall impression of the device, likelihood of using the device in the future, and recommending the device to a friend, while the Eddie by Giddy device performed better at improving erectile firmness.

Clinical trial registration number: NCT05853822.