Skip to main content

Vacuum Erection Device (VED)

The vacuum erection device (VED) is a non-invasive mechanical device that uses negative pressure to draw blood into the corpora cavernosa, producing an erection that can be maintained with a constriction ring. A vacuum erection device was cleared by the US FDA in 1982.[1][36] The FDA Class II external penile rigidity device guidance covers devices intended to create or maintain rigidity for intercourse; it excludes claims to treat curvature, enlarge the penis, or prevent or reverse ED.[35] They are used for erectile dysfunction (ED) of any etiology, post-radical-prostatectomy penile rehabilitation, adjunctive therapy in Peyronie's disease, and pre- and postoperative penile prosthesis optimization.[2][3] A nonrandomized cohort of men with ED after posterior urethroplasty for pelvic-fracture urethral injury compared tadalafil plus VED (n = 36) with tadalafil alone (n = 42) over six months; penile length and questionnaire scores favored the combination.[37]

Mechanism — two functional modes​

VEDs operate in two distinct modes[2]:

Vacuum Constriction Device (VCD) — for intercourse​

  • Negative pressure applied via a cylinder distends corporal sinusoids, drawing blood into the corpora cavernosa.
  • An external constriction ring at the base of the penis prevents venous outflow, maintaining the erection.
  • Negative pressure draws blood into the corpora without requiring intact erectile nerve signaling; the constriction ring limits outflow.[2][36] The ring must not stay on for more than 30 minutes to avoid penile ischemia.[4]

VED for rehabilitation — without constriction ring​

  • The same negative-pressure mechanism is used without a ring, purely to increase corporal blood oxygenation and tissue perfusion.[2][5]
  • The proposed rationale is that artificially induced erections improve tissue oxygenation, reduce cavernosal fibrosis, and preserve smooth-muscle integrity when nocturnal erections are absent.

Proposed mechanisms include increased peak flow and elasticity of the cavernous arteries, preservation of corporal smooth muscle, and prevention of veno-occlusive dysfunction through regular tissue engorgement.[6]

Clinical indications and evidence​

Erectile dysfunction — primary indication​

The AUA 2018 ED guideline states that men with ED should be informed of VED as a treatment option, including its benefits and risks and burdens . Devices are available over the counter or by prescription, and only devices with a vacuum limiter should be used.[7]

PopulationVED efficacy rateSource
Mixed etiologies82.9%Zhang SR/meta (18 studies, n = 1,065)[8]
Post-radical prostatectomy84.5%Zhang[8]
Diabetes mellitus73.0%Zhang[8]
Spinal cord injury71.8%Zhang[8]
Pooled refractory ED (PDE5i non-responders)80% (95% CI 0.76–0.84)Zhang[8]
Purchaser survey, mixed etiologies, no defined follow-up76.8% continuous use; 83.5% reported sex as often as desired (5,847 valid responses)Lewis 1997[9]

Efficacy in the Zhang meta-analysis was defined as successful intercourse or intercourse satisfaction. The pooled estimates come from 18 studies of mixed design, and the authors call for larger randomized trials.[8]

In a survey of 34,777 registered device owners, 7,075 returned a questionnaire (20.3%) and 5,847 had valid responses (16.8% of those surveyed).[9] Among valid respondents, 76.8% reported continuous use and 83.5% reported sex as often as desired; follow-up time was not defined.[9]

Positioning. VED has been described as an attractive second-line therapy after PDE5i failure, and as first-line in selected patients such as those after prostatectomy or unable to use a PDE5i.[1] The ADA 2026 Standards of Care list VEDs among treatments for diabetic ED not responding to PDE5is.[10][11]

Combination with PDE5 inhibitors. In a randomized trial (Sun 2014, n = 66) of men with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe ED who were dissatisfied with sildenafil 100 mg, sildenafil plus VED gave higher IIEF scores than VED alone (17.53 vs 14.29 at 3 months, p < 0.0001), and more men achieved successful intercourse (70% vs 46.6%).[12] Across several ED populations, a 2025 four-study meta-analysis comparing VED plus a PDE5 inhibitor with a PDE5 inhibitor alone found a greater change in IIEF score with combination treatment (mean difference 4.19 points; 95% CI 0.81–7.57), with very high heterogeneity (I² = 96%).[39]

Post-radical-prostatectomy penile rehabilitation​

VED is used in penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy because it draws blood into the penis regardless of nerve integrity.[2][5]

  • Pirola 2024 Int J Impot Res. Systematic scoping review of 16 studies (7 randomized): all reported improved IIEF-5, conserved penile length and satisfactory intercourse compared with controls. Results appeared better in patients enrolled in dedicated VED programs that enhanced compliance.[6]
  • Feng 2022 SR/meta. IIEF-5 was higher with vacuum constriction devices than with control at 6–9 months after RP (MD 6.70, 95% CI 2.30–11.10, p = 0.003), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 72%).[13]
  • Di Nauta 2025 academic penile-rehabilitation program (397 of 570 patients entered a program offering tadalafil, VED and weekly intracavernosal alprostadil in varying regimens): two-year EF recovery (IIEF-5 ≥ 21, with or without rehabilitation aids) was 75% with preoperative IIEF-5 above 16 and 45% at or below 16. Combination treatment (PDE5i plus VED, with or without ICI) reached up to 80% assisted recovery.[14] The series was non-randomized.[14]
  • Basal 2013. In a retrospective review of 203 patients, PDE5i plus VED was associated with the shortest EF-recovery period after bilateral nerve-sparing robotic RP.[15]
  • A 2025 narrative review calls VED's effect on spontaneous (unassisted) erectile-function recovery after RP uncertain.[5] The 2025 ICSM panel recommends against offering VED to hasten or increase that recovery ; its recommendations for assisted intercourse and penile-size maintenance address separate indications.[36]

Post-RP protocols. VED was used daily in 7 of 16 studies in a scoping review; eight studies evaluated VED alone and eight combined it with PDE5i. The optimal schedule and start time after surgery remain unsettled.[6][16]

Peyronie's disease — limited monotherapy and adjunct evidence​

VED has a limited role in Peyronie's disease (PD), distinct from penile traction therapy[3][17]:

  • Animal model (Lin 2017). In a rat model, VED reduced penile curvature versus untreated controls (28.4° vs 38.6°, p < 0.05). Traction reduced it more (15.3°).[17]
  • Combined with CCH injections. Ralph 2017, a randomized open-label pilot (n = 30) of CCH plus VED with or without modeling, reported mean curvature improvements at 36 weeks of −23.7° with modeling and −23.3° without modeling, and global response of 86.7% and 92.3%, respectively.[18] Both arms received VED. Alzubaidi 2025, a retrospective series (n = 99) of CCH plus VED plus daily tadalafil, reported a mean 21.4% curvature improvement.[18][19] The US Xiaflex label tells patients not to use a vacuum erection device during treatment, so these combinations are outside the labeled course.[33]
  • Post-IPP scratch technique (Antonini 2018). In a prospective single-arm series (n = 145), VED twice daily for 3 minutes after IPP placement was followed by a fall in residual curvature from 14–22° to 8–9° over 24 weeks.[20]
  • Dedicated traction devices have stronger curvature-correction trial evidence than VED.[3] In an uncontrolled 31-man VED series, 21/31 men (68%) had a 5–25° reduction in curvature measured after intracavernosal injection at 12 weeks.[36][42] The 2026 ICSM Peyronie consensus conditionally includes vacuum devices within traction-based monotherapy or multimodal treatment (moderate-quality evidence for the grouped recommendation); VED alone remains supported mainly by small nonrandomized studies.[40][32] VED may be selected when concurrent ED is a treatment goal.[3]

Pre- and post-penile-prosthesis optimization​

VED has distinct roles in perioperative IPP management.[21][22]

Preoperative corporal-fibrosis preparation.

  • Tsambarlis 2017. In a retrospective series of 13 men with severe corporal fibrosis (prior prosthesis infection in 11, ischemic priapism in 2), VED for 10–15 minutes at least twice daily for at least three months (mean 3.5) preceded three-piece IPP placement with standard-size cylinders in all 13. Stretched flaccid length was 0.92 cm greater after VED and implantation than before VED; one infection and one erosion required revision.[23]
  • One month of preoperative VED use has been proposed for corporal preparation.[21] A randomized trial in 51 men showed that 10–15 minutes of daily VED for at least 30 days increased mean stretched penile length by 0.80 cm (n = 25), versus 0.19 cm without VED (n = 26; calculated from reported group means); blinded surgeons reported smoother corporal dilation.[41] Long-term implant outcomes were not assessed.[41]

Postoperative length and girth preservation.

  • Antonini 2020 (prospective, single-arm; 74 selected from 106 enrolled; AMS LGX 700 IPP; VED 5 minutes twice daily for 12 weeks; median 52-week follow-up): median preoperative stretched flaccid length and girth were 14 and 9 cm, versus 17 and 11 cm at maximum implant inflation at follow-up; these are measurements in different states. Median IIEF-5 was 9 at baseline and 25 at 1 year (p < 0.0001).[24]
  • In Antonini's single-arm LGX cohort, median preoperative alprostadil-induced erect length and girth did not differ significantly from maximally inflated measurements at 12 months (17 versus 17 cm and 11 versus 11 cm); concurrent implantation and device cycling were part of the protocol.[24] Traction therapy does not affect girth.[22]
  • Postoperative VED without a ring for 12 weeks, alongside pump-inflation protocols, has been described.[21]

Cosmetic / aesthetic penile lengthening — minimal evidence​

Unlike penile traction therapy, VED has shown no significant efficacy for cosmetic elongation.[25]

  • Aghamir 2006 (n = 37, VED three times weekly for six months): mean stretched penile length rose nonsignificantly from 7.6 to 7.9 cm (0.3 cm, approximately 4%); satisfaction was 30%.[25]
  • The Oderda-Gontero 2011 review concluded that penile extenders (traction devices) are the only evidence-based non-surgical lengthening technique, and it did not count VED among them.[26]

Devices​

FeatureMedical-grade VEDOver-the-counter VED
FDA regulationExternal penile rigidity devices are FDA-regulated Class II devices[35]OTC distribution does not remove FDA regulation; verify the specific device and its safety features[35]
Constriction ringIncludedMay or may not include
Pressure limitVerify a vacuum limiter on the specific device; a gauge alone does not limit suction[7]The AUA recommends a vacuum limiter for OTC devices as well[7]
Insurance coverage (US)Medicare excludes VEDs coded L7900 and related supplies coded L7902; some other insurers may cover a medical-grade pump[38][29]Medicare does not cover coded VEDs or supplies[38]
CostHigher initialLower
Best-studied deviceOsbon ErecAid (Timm Medical)[3]Various

The Osbon ErecAid is the most studied vacuum device across indications.[3] In Salvatore 1991, regular users scored the Osbon ErecAid, Mentor Response and Mentor-Piston highest for ease of use, and all novice users preferred single-handed devices.[27]

Safety​

Adverse events with VED are typically transient and minor.[8][28][9][7]

Common adverse events​

  • Penile bruising or petechiae. Pooled incidence 24.3% (higher in SCI 31.4%).[8]
  • Penile numbness; discomfort or pain.
  • Delayed or blocked ejaculation. The constriction ring impedes antegrade ejaculation.
  • Cold penile sensation.
  • Pivoting at the penile base. Erection is rigid distal to the ring but not proximal.

Contraindications and cautions[29][9][7]​

  • Anticoagulant therapy or bleeding disorders. EAU 2026 lists these as contraindications to VED use; AUA 2018 advises caution because of bleeding risk.[32][7]
  • History of unexplained intermittent priapism.
  • Reduced penile pain sensation or hand strength. FDA device-labeling guidance advises against use when injury may go unnoticed or device removal may be difficult.[35]
  • Sickle-cell disease or other priapism-predisposing conditions.
  • Constriction ring use. Remove the ring within 30 minutes because prolonged constriction risks penile ischemia.[28][35] Do not sleep with it in place; allow at least 60 minutes between uses and choose the least constrictive size that maintains an erection.[35]
  • In its spinal cord injury equipment guide, ASIA 2022 advises against vacuum tumescence device use with anticoagulants or a history of Peyronie's disease.[29] FDA device-labeling guidance warns that the vacuum pump itself may aggravate existing Peyronie's disease or urethral stricture, including without a constriction ring.[35]

Pressure-limiting mechanism. ASIA describes vacuum-limiting safety mechanisms in FDA-tested brands.[29] Confirm that the chosen pump has the automatic pressure-limiting valve and manual quick-release mechanism recommended by FDA; the AUA recommends a vacuum limiter for both prescription and over-the-counter devices.[35][7]

Practical considerations​

  • Patient selection. A 2013 review described VCDs as usually reserved for men in stable relationships who had failed oral PDE5 inhibitors and declined injections or implants.[28] The AUA 2018 guideline recommends informing men with ED about VED , and the EAU 2026 guideline recommends offering VED to well-informed patients requesting non-invasive, drug-free treatment .[7][32]
  • Partner involvement is often helpful, particularly for patients with limited hand dexterity.[4]
  • Initial medical supervision is recommended while the patient learns the device. In Salvatore 1991, 80% of novice users (8/10) and 95% of regular users (19/20) rated the instructional videotape as essential.[27] A described familiarization sequence has the new user first practice without the constriction ring and avoid maximum vacuum initially: pump to about 50% rigidity, ease back roughly 20%, pump to about 70%, ease back again and repeat, progressing toward full rigidity as comfort allows, with at least twice-weekly home practice in the first month. During use, slow pumping, releasing vacuum if discomfort develops, checking that scrotal skin is not caught in the cylinder, and placing the ring as proximally as possible (to limit pivoting at its base) are also advised.[34]
  • Lubrication is used to prevent skin damage.[29]
  • Satisfaction is more variable than efficacy, and continued use falls over time. The EAU reports VED efficacy, defined as erections satisfactory for intercourse, as high as 90%[32]; the Lancet review states that nearly half of patients are dissatisfied with the mechanical or unnatural quality of the erection.[28] An older survey of 5,847 valid purchaser responses found 76.8% continuing device use and 83.5% reporting sex as often as desired, with no follow-up interval specified[9]; the EAU 2026 guideline instead reports continued use falling to 50–64% by two years in a general ED population (see Guideline Positioning below).

Guideline positioning​

BodyPosition
AUA 2018 ED Guideline[7]Men with ED should be informed of VED as an option, with benefits and risks and burdens ; use devices with a vacuum limiter; caution with anticoagulants, bleeding disorders, priapism
EAU Neuro-Urology 2026[43]Offer mechanical devices such as vacuum devices and rings to patients with neurogenic ED
ADA 2026 Standards of Care[10][11]Lists VED among treatments for diabetic ED not responding to PDE5is
ACS Prostate Cancer Survivorship[30]Recommends referral for persistent ED to review options including VED; combination therapy (e.g., sildenafil + vacuum constriction) may improve erectile function and should be managed with urology
ICSM 2016 Penile Prosthesis[31]Discusses VED among less-invasive ED treatments before prosthesis and preimplant vacuum or traction as proposed methods to stretch penile tissue
ICSM 2025 VED consensus[36]Offer VED for intercourse and early after RP to maintain penile size (strong; moderate-quality evidence); do not offer it to hasten or increase spontaneous EF recovery after RP (strong; high-quality evidence); VED may be offered before or after penile prosthesis implantation (weak; low-quality evidence)
EAU Sexual and Reproductive Health, March 2026[32]ED: offer VED to well-informed patients requesting non-invasive, drug-free treatment (weak; level 2b), reported efficacy for intercourse up to 90% and satisfaction 27–94%, continued use 50–64% at two years, ring removed within 30 minutes, contraindicated with bleeding disorders or anticoagulation. Peyronie's disease: offer traction and vacuum devices to reduce deformity or within multimodal therapy (weak; only two retrospective studies of VED monotherapy). Short penile size: level 3 evidence calls VED ineffective for lengthening, although a weak recommendation says to consider it
ASIA 2022 SCI Durable Medical Equipment[29]Describes vacuum tumescence devices for SCI/D; notes dexterity requirements and cautions against use with anticoagulants or a history of Peyronie's disease

See Also​

Penile Traction Therapy · Peyronie's Disease (Male Sexual Dysfunction atlas) · Penile Implants · Erectile Dysfunction (clinical conditions) · PDE5 Inhibitors · Intracavernosal Injection Agents

References​

1. Brison D, Seftel A, Sadeghi-Nejad H. The resurgence of the vacuum erection device (VED) for treatment of erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2013;10(4):1124-1135. doi:10.1111/jsm.12046

2. Yuan J, Hoang AN, Romero CA, et al. Vacuum therapy in erectile dysfunction — science and clinical evidence. Int J Impot Res. 2010;22(4):211-219. doi:10.1038/ijir.2010.4

3. Sultana A, Grice P, Vukina J, Pearce I, Modgil V. Indications and characteristics of penile traction and vacuum erection devices. Nat Rev Urol. 2022;19(2):84-100. doi:10.1038/s41585-021-00532-7

4. Hentzen C, Musco S, Amarenco G, Del Popolo G, Panicker JN. Approach and management to patients with neurological disorders reporting sexual dysfunction. Lancet Neurol. 2022;21(6):551-562. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00036-9

5. Shu T, Ren D, Wang R. The role of vacuum erection device and penile traction therapy in the patients after radical prostatectomy: a narrative review. Int J Impot Res. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01092-9

6. Pirola GM, Naselli A, Maggi M, et al. Vacuum erection device for erectile function rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: which is the correct schedule? Results from a systematic, scoping review. Int J Impot Res. 2024;36(3):194-200. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00700-w

7. Burnett AL, Nehra A, Breau RH, et al. Erectile dysfunction: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2018;200(3):633-641. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.004

8. Zhang F, Luo Z, Xue Q, et al. Efficacy of vacuum erectile device in refractory erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Impot Res. 2026;38(2):76-85. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01102-w

9. Lewis RW, Witherington R. External vacuum therapy for erectile dysfunction: use and results. World J Urol. 1997;15(1):78-82. doi:10.1007/BF01275162

10. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 4. Comprehensive medical evaluation and assessment of comorbidities: standards of care in diabetes — 2026. Diabetes Care. 2026;49(Suppl 1):S61-S88. doi:10.2337/dc26-S004

11. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 12. Retinopathy, neuropathy, and foot care: standards of care in diabetes — 2026. Diabetes Care. 2026;49(Suppl 1):S261-S276. doi:10.2337/dc26-S012

12. Sun L, Peng FL, Yu ZL, Liu CL, Chen J. Combined sildenafil with vacuum erection device therapy in the management of diabetic men with erectile dysfunction after failure of first-line sildenafil monotherapy. Int J Urol. 2014;21(12):1263-1267. doi:10.1111/iju.12564

13. Feng D, Tang C, Liu S, et al. Current management strategy of treating patients with erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(1):18-36. doi:10.1038/s41443-020-00364-w

14. Nauta MD, Falagario UG, Ricapito A, et al. Sexual function recovery following open and robotic radical prostatectomy: results of an academic penile rehabilitation program. Asian J Androl. 2025;27(6):680-685. doi:10.4103/aja202525

15. Basal S, Wambi C, Acikel C, Gupta M, Badani K. Optimal strategy for penile rehabilitation after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy based on preoperative erectile function. BJU Int. 2013;111(4):658-665. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11487.x

16. Bock M, Burns RT, Pereira TA, Bernie HL. A contemporary review of the treatments and challenges associated with penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy including a proposed optimal approach. Int J Impot Res. 2024;36(5):480-485. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00782-6

17. Lin H, Liu C, Wang R. Effect of penile traction and vacuum erectile device for Peyronie's disease in an animal model. J Sex Med. 2017;14(10):1270-1276. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.08.011

18. Ralph DJ, Abdel Raheem A, Liu G. Treatment of Peyronie's disease with collagenase clostridium histolyticum and vacuum therapy: a randomized, open-label pilot study. J Sex Med. 2017;14(11):1430-1437. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.08.015

19. Alzubaidi RT, Abdelkareem M, Al-Zoubi RM, et al. Outcomes and management of Peyronie's disease with combined treatment of collagenase clostridium histolyticum, vacuum erection device, and tadalafil. Asian J Androl. 2025;27(6):686-690. doi:10.4103/aja202514

20. Antonini G, De Berardinis E, Del Giudice F, et al. Inflatable penile prosthesis placement, scratch technique and postoperative vacuum therapy as a combined approach to definitive treatment of Peyronie's disease. J Urol. 2018;200(3):642-647. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.060

21. Krishnappa P, Matippa P, Fraile-Poblador A, Lledo-Garcia E, Moncada I. Penile length preservation in penile prosthesis placement: tips & tricks. Int J Impot Res. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01123-5

22. Łaszkiewicz J, Berardinis E, Krajewski W, et al. Perioperative therapies and techniques to enhance penile dimensional and functional outcomes following inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a contemporary 10-year systematic review. Asian J Androl. 2026;28(1):31-37. doi:10.4103/aja2024105

23. Tsambarlis PN, Chaus F, Levine LA. Successful placement of penile prostheses in men with severe corporal fibrosis following vacuum therapy protocol. J Sex Med. 2017;14(1):44-46. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.11.304

24. Antonini G, De Berardinis E, Busetto GM, et al. Postoperative vacuum therapy following AMS™ LGX 700® inflatable penile prosthesis placement: penile dimension outcomes and overall satisfaction. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32(1):133-139. doi:10.1038/s41443-019-0125-z

25. Aghamir MK, Hosseini R, Alizadeh F. A vacuum device for penile elongation: fact or fiction? BJU Int. 2006;97(4):777-778. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.05992.x

26. Oderda M, Gontero P. Non-invasive methods of penile lengthening: fact or fiction? BJU Int. 2011;107(8):1278-1282. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09647.x

27. Salvatore FT, Sharman GM, Hellstrom WJ. Vacuum constriction devices and the clinical urologist: an informed selection. Urology. 1991;38(4):323-327. doi:10.1016/0090-4295(91)80144-v

28. Shamloul R, Ghanem H. Erectile dysfunction. Lancet. 2013;381(9861):153-165. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60520-0

29. American Spinal Injury Association. Durable medical equipment guidelines for persons with spinal cord injury or dysfunction (Update 2022). 2022.

30. Skolarus TA, Wolf AM, Erb NL, et al. American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(4):225-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21234

31. Levine LA, Becher EF, Bella AJ, et al. Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. J Sex Med. 2016;13(4):489-518. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.017

32. EAU. Guidelines on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Limited Update March 2026, sections 5.6.6, 5.6.12, 8.2.3.a.3, 8.2.3.a.4 and 9.3.1.e.

33. Endo USA. XIAFLEX (collagenase clostridium histolyticum): US prescribing information. Label revised 04/2026; patient counseling section checked against the FDA label September 26, 2026.

34. Mulhall JP, Jenkins LC. Vacuum Erection Device Training. In: Atlas of Office Based Andrology Procedures. Springer; 2017:103–108. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42178-0_14

35. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "External Penile Rigidity Devices: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document for Industry and FDA Staff." 2004. FDA guidance

36. Wang R, Martins FE, Ralph D, et al. "Vacuum erectile devices for erectile dysfunction: recommendations from the 5th international consultation on sexual medicine." Sex Med Rev. 2025;13(2):172-183. doi:10.1093/sxmrev/qeaf002

37. Zhang DL, Chen Z, Wang FX, et al. "Adding a vacuum erection device to regular use of Tadalafil improves penile rehabilitation after posterior urethroplasty." Asian J Androl. 2019;21(6):582-586. PMID:31169141

38. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "Vacuum Erection Devices (VED) - Policy Article (A52712)." Medicare Coverage Database. Updated April 7, 2022. CMS policy

39. Theodorus AR, et al. "Is the vacuum erectile device suitable for treating erectile dysfunction? A systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the evidence gap." Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2025;97(4):14328. doi:10.4081/aiua.2025.14328

40. Chung E, Ziegelmann M, Lin HC, et al. "Management of Peyronie’s disease: recommendations from the Fifth International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2024)." Sex Med Rev. 2026;14(1):qeaf068. doi:10.1093/sxmrev/qeaf068

41. Canguven O, Talib RA, Campbell J, De Young L, El Ansari W, Al-Ansari A. "Is the daily use of vacuum erection device for a month before penile prosthesis implantation beneficial? A randomized controlled trial." Andrology. 2017;5(1):103-106. doi:10.1111/andr.12258

42. Abdel Raheem A, Garaffa G, Abdel Raheem T, et al. "The role of vacuum pump therapy to mechanically straighten the penis in Peyronie’s disease." BJU Int. 2010;106(8):1178–1180. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09365.x

43. Blok B, Hamid R, Hentzen C, et al. EAU Guidelines on Neuro-Urology. Limited update March 2026. EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem. Section 3.6.1, erectile dysfunction. Official guideline