阴茎收缩装置:一项随机调查研究,比较两种医疗级装置的偏好。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Daniela Orozco Rendon, Gal Saffati, Christine Whitehead, Caroline Zuckerman, Amy Hom, Riley Daily, Mohit Khera, Philip J Cheng
{"title":"阴茎收缩装置:一项随机调查研究,比较两种医疗级装置的偏好。","authors":"Daniela Orozco Rendon, Gal Saffati, Christine Whitehead, Caroline Zuckerman, Amy Hom, Riley Daily, Mohit Khera, Philip J Cheng","doi":"10.1093/jsxmed/qdae151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We aimed to compare the preferences for and effectiveness of two medical-grade penile constriction devices: Eddie by Giddy and FirmTech.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Strengths and limitations: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration number: </strong>NCT05853822.</p>","PeriodicalId":51100,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sexual Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"43-50"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Penile constriction devices: a randomized survey study to compare preferences between two medical-grade devices.\",\"authors\":\"Daniela Orozco Rendon, Gal Saffati, Christine Whitehead, Caroline Zuckerman, Amy Hom, Riley Daily, Mohit Khera, Philip J Cheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jsxmed/qdae151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We aimed to compare the preferences for and effectiveness of two medical-grade penile constriction devices: Eddie by Giddy and FirmTech.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Strengths and limitations: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration number: </strong>NCT05853822.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sexual Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"43-50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sexual Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae151\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sexual Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae151","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:阴茎收缩器提供了一种非侵入性的方法来增强性体验,随着阴茎收缩器种类的增加,评估患者的偏好和器械的有效性对于深入了解其临床实用性至关重要:方法:2023 年 5 月至 7 月间,我们通过社交媒体招募男性,并将他们纳入一项经机构审查委员会批准的随机问卷调查研究。注册时,参与者填写了 "男性性健康清单 "和 "老年男性雄激素缺乏症 "问卷。参与者被随机分配先使用哪种装置。在两周的时间内,他们在自慰或性交时使用该装置两次。使用完毕后,受试者填写了一份包含 17 个问题的李克特量表式装置满意度问卷,其中较低的数字表示正面回答。使用第二个装置时重复上述过程。采用 T 检验和 Chi-Square 分析法进行统计分析:本研究的主要结果是患者报告的装置满意度和疗效,次要结果是有勃起功能障碍和无勃起功能障碍患者对装置的偏好:结果:50 名男性参加了研究,49 人完成了研究。平均年龄为 40 岁。在参与者中,80% 的人推荐使用 FirmTech 设备,而 53% 的人推荐使用 Eddie by Giddy 设备(P = 0.0026)。总体而言,FirmTech 设备在松弛和勃起时都更容易佩戴(P = 0.0308 和 0.0002),更舒适,伸展性更好,也更容易调节(P = 0.087,临床意义:这项研究为目前有关阴茎收缩器的文献提供了新的内容,可以更好地指导医疗服务提供者指导患者使用这些器械来增强性功能:这项研究的优势在于它是一项前瞻性随机交叉研究。本研究的局限性在于这是一项基于患者报告结果的单中心研究:结论:在对设备的总体印象、将来使用设备的可能性以及向朋友推荐设备方面,FirmTech 设备优于 Eddie by Giddy 设备,而 Eddie by Giddy 设备在改善勃起硬度方面表现更好:临床试验注册号:NCT05853822。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Penile constriction devices: a randomized survey study to compare preferences between two medical-grade devices.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Sexual Medicine
Journal of Sexual Medicine 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
826
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sexual Medicine publishes multidisciplinary basic science and clinical research to define and understand the scientific basis of male, female, and couples sexual function and dysfunction. As an official journal of the International Society for Sexual Medicine and the International Society for the Study of Women''s Sexual Health, it provides healthcare professionals in sexual medicine with essential educational content and promotes the exchange of scientific information generated from experimental and clinical research. The Journal of Sexual Medicine includes basic science and clinical research studies in the psychologic and biologic aspects of male, female, and couples sexual function and dysfunction, and highlights new observations and research, results with innovative treatments and all other topics relevant to clinical sexual medicine. The objective of The Journal of Sexual Medicine is to serve as an interdisciplinary forum to integrate the exchange among disciplines concerned with the whole field of human sexuality. The journal accomplishes this objective by publishing original articles, as well as other scientific and educational documents that support the mission of the International Society for Sexual Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信