Premium
Evaluation of the Sexual Assessment Monitor, a diagnostic device used to electronically quantify ejaculatory latency time: findings from three studies
Author(s) -
DINSMORE WALLACE W.,
RALPH DAVID J.,
KELL PHILLIP,
WYLIE KEVAN R.,
DEAN JOHN P.,
NOVAK CLAIRE,
WYLLIE JENNIFER S.,
WYLLIE MICHAEL G.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2006.06286.x
Subject(s) - premature ejaculation , ejaculation , medicine , latency (audio) , gynecology , psychology , engineering , electrical engineering , psychoanalysis
Associate Editor Michael G. Wyllie Editorial Board Ian Eardley, UK Jean Fourcroy, USA Sidney Glina, Brazil Julia Heiman, USA Chris McMahon, Australia Bob Millar, UK Alvaro Morales, Canada Michael Perelman, USA Marcel Waldinger, Netherlands OBJECTIVE To validate the Sexual Assessment Monitor (SAM), a novel apparatus designed to collect electronic data on ejaculatory latency time (ELT) for diagnosing premature ejaculation (PE), and for accurately measuring treatment outcomes in clinical trials. PATIENTS, SUBJECTS AND METHODS Men with PE, and healthy volunteers aged 18–75 years, were enrolled in three open‐label studies, conducted in the UK. The SAM, which consists of a control box with two front attachments, a vibrator and sensor, was attached to the penis. The vibrator, which provides stimulation, was positioned at the frenulum using a soft cuff; the vibrator intensity was set at 80 units for most subjects. The sensor is an indium‐gallium elasticated loop, which was positioned around the base of the penis to detect ejaculatory pulses. These pulses were transmitted to a data recorder in the control box. The data, which are displayed graphically as traces, were automatically classified by a computer‐generated algorithm to quantify ELT. RESULTS In all, 53 healthy volunteers and 58 men with PE provided 213 and 195 evaluable records, respectively. Most were complete records (99% and 96%). The pooled data showed that the ELT was much higher for healthy volunteers than for men with PE (geometric means: 687 vs 169 s, respectively), with a healthy volunteer to PE patient ratio of 2.87 ( P < 0.001). Only 6.3% of subjects reported mild adverse events, which were unrelated to the SAM. CONCLUSIONS These open‐label studies show that the SAM can consistently and safely measure times to erection (from the start of vibration) and ejaculation, and ELT in healthy volunteers and men with PE. These findings show that the SAM has the potential to become the ‘gold standard’ in the diagnosis of PE and in clinical trials design.