As regards implants, and in particular penile implants for curing erectile impotence, known from the background art, there are a number of areas or aspects where there is room for improvement.
One problem often encountered is the formation of fibrotic tissue or accumulation of fibrotic cells on the surface of the implant. The formation of such tissue on the surface of a penile implant may negatively influence the function of the implant, e.g. if such tissue is formed on a part of the surface that is collapsible and/or expandable.
In the background art expandable/collapsible breast implants are known, see e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 6,875,233 B1. The pleats of the implant described in this document may be prone to be bridged by fibrotic tissue which may impede the function of the implant. Further, the technique shown in this document may be unsuitable for use in a penile implant since the conditions and demands may differ between penile implants and breast implants.
See also U.S. Pat. No. 4,424,807 which shows a penile implant where the folded or overlapped portions 50 and the folded ends 44 and 46 may be prone to be bridged or covered by fibrotic tissue which may impede the function of the implant.
Another problem often encountered with previously known implants, especially in connection with penile implants, is that there is a risk that the penile implant breaks when it is subjected to bending. A penile implant is e.g. often subjected to bending in its relaxed state and in the bended area there is an evident risk of damage or breaking of the penile implant. See e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 4,424,807 which shows a penile implant subjected to bending in its relaxed state.
One further problem often encountered with previously known penile implants is that the angle of the penis when activated by the penile implant is unnatural and does not correspond to the angle of an erected normally functioning penis. A normally functioning penis is bent upward to some extent, there are of course individual variations, when erected but previously known penile implants often result in an erected penis that is not bent upwards but solely stands straight out from the body under an angle of approximately 90 degrees. See e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 4,424,807 which shows a previously known penile implant as described.
Another problem often encountered with previously known implants, especially in connection with penile implants, is that a quite large amount of hydraulic fluid is needed to fill the penile implant when the penile implant is activated. This leads to a delay in the activation of the penile implant and to a relatively large reservoir for the hydraulic fluid. The larger the reservoir for the hydraulic fluid is, the more difficult it is to invasively place it, e.g. in the scrotum, and potentially the more inconvenient it is for the patient to have the reservoir invasively placed in the body. To have a large amount of hydraulic fluid in the activated penile implant also makes the penile implant heavy which may be dissuitable. See e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 4,424,807 which shows a previously known penile implant as described.
Another problem often encountered with previously known penile implants is that there is no radial or longitudinal expansion of the penile implant when filled with hydraulic fluid. In contrast, a natural corpus cavernosum undergoes a radial and longitudinal expansion when filled with blood. There is previously known penile implants having provisions for radial and longitudinal expansion, see e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 4,424,807, but these provisions have less favorable characteristics in certain aspects. In the case of U.S. Pat. No. 4,424,807, as mentioned before, the folded or overlapped portions 50 and the folded ends 44 and 46 may be prone to be bridged or covered by fibrotic tissue.
A further problem with previously known implants is that they do not provide any remedy for dysfunctional ejaculation.
Also other solutions than those cited above are known in this field, one known solution to achieve erection is to restrict the blood flow leaving the penis. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,828,990 discloses two hydraulically operated inflatable cuffs wrapped around respective crura or veins. A disadvantage of such a solution is that it involves complicated surgery.
Another known solution according to U.S. Pat. No. 4,828,544 comprises an artificial fistula system surgically implanted and providing a primary fistula between the femoral artery and the femoral vein and a secondary fistula for leading blood from the primary fistula to the penis. An inflatable balloon engages the primary fistula between the secondary fistula and the vein. The balloon is in fluid connection with a manually compressible reservoir implanted in the scrotum. Again, implantation of this artificial fistula system requires delicate surgery. Another disadvantage, to such a solution, is the fact that the venous blood vessel system is rather complex and it is difficult to restrict the vein plexa.
Yet another known solution, for example disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,855,122, 3,954,102, 4,009,711, 4,201,202, 4,235,222, 4,318,396, 5,250,020 and 4,424,807, currently practiced is to replace the corpus cavernosa in the penis with a hydraulic inflatable/contractable silicone prosthesis thus implanted in the penis. In fluid connection with this prosthesis is a balloon-like reservoir implanted in the scrotum. By manual pumping action the prosthesis is filled with fluid from the reservoir to effect erect penile condition or is emptied of fluid, which returns to the reservoir, to effect flaccid penile condition.
It is an aim to provide a technique that leads to improvement regarding all or at least some of the areas or aspects discussed above.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds