Evaluating the Vigor 2020 vacuum erection device for erectile dysfunction

This study evaluated whether the Vigor 2020, a new vacuum erection device (VED), is effective for the management of erectile dysfunction (ED). The main finding was that Vigor 2020 was effective for men with ED. 

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the inability to get or keep an erection firm enough to have sex. There are many different treatment options available for ED. These involve drugs and devices such as vacuum erection devices (VED) and surgery. VEDs are devices that help create erections by sucking air out of the cylinders inserted over the penis. They contain a ring at the base of the penis that constricts the penis so the erection can be maintained. Vigor 2020 is a new VED approved for use in Japan that uses sizing rings to allow suitable erection and ejaculation. However, the effectiveness of Vigor 2020 is still under investigation.

This study involved 33 male patients with ED. All patients were treated with the Vigor 2020 VED device. The effectiveness and patient satisfaction of Vigor 2020 were assessed before and after 2 months of use. The device's effectiveness was evaluated using the Erection Hardness Score (EHS). EHS is a scale from 0 to 4 points. All men had scores of 2 or lower before the study.

After 2 months of Vigor 2020 use, the EHS scores of 93.33% of patients improved by at least 1 point. 62.50% of these patients could reach an erection score of 3 or higher, which is satisfactory for vaginal penetration. There was also a significant improvement in the total International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score after Vigor 2020 use. IIEF is a questionnaire mainly based on the erectile function of a patient. 

None of the patients experienced significant side effects. There were no differences between men who used the Vigor 2020 device alone and those who also used ED medications. 

This study concluded that the Vigor 2020 is effective for men with ED.

The study was conducted in a single hospital and had a small number of participants. More studies with larger patient groups and with longer follow-up periods are needed.