Use of Soft Penile Prosthesis in Grafting Surgery for Peyronie's Disease and Mild Erectile Dysfunction: Still an Option?

BACKGROUND: Plaque incision and grafting (PEG) is a primary surgical therapy for severe penile curvature in Peyronie's disease (PD); However, it can increase the risk of erectile dysfunction (ED), particularly in patients with pre-operative mild ED. Soft penile prosthesis (SPP) implantation is a viable treatment option in such cases. This study aims to compare the outcomes of PEG-only approach to PEG plus SPP implantation. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2019, 32 patients with PD and mild ED (5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function scores: 17-21) underwent PEG surgery. Two groups were defined based on the surgery type: PEG-only and PEG plus SPP. The long-term outcomes included correction of penile bending, erection quality, intercourse ability, penile length and sensitivity. The overall satisfaction and impact of surgery on sexual activity and quality of life were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 32 patients, 13 (40.6%) underwent PEG-only surgery, whereas 19 (59.4%) underwent PEG plus SPP. No significant differences were noted between the groups regarding pre-operative characteristics (all p > 0.1) or intra- and post-operative complication rates (all p > 0.2). The median patch area was larger in the PEG-only group (28 cm2 vs. 16.2 cm2; p = 0.001), whereas patients in the PEG plus SPP group were more likely to receive a single patch implant (100% vs. 53.8%; p < 0.001). The penile length increased in 18 patients (61.6%), with significant differences between the two groups (30% vs. 81.2%; p = 0.03). Overall, 14 patients (53.8%) reported greater satisfaction with their sexual life post-operatively, with comparable rates between the groups (p = 0.2). No significant differences were found in the post-operative 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function scores or severe post-operative ED (all p > 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: SPP placement during corporoplasty in patients with mild ED is safe and feasible, and it may be a suitable option for patients uncertain about inflatable prosthesis placement. The use of SPP resulted in longer penile lengths and necessitated smaller grafts. However, further data are required to understand the long-term clinical implications of this approach.

Surgical management of complex curvature in Peyronie's disease.

PURPOSE: About 10% of Peyronie's patients are complex cases with severe curvature (>60 degrees), ventral plaque, multiplanar curvature, hour-glass/hinge deformity, notching deformity, and ossified plaque. In patients with complex Peyronie's disease (PD), different techniques (shortening procedures, lengthening procedures, and penile prosthesis implantation (IPP)) may be necessary to achieve successful result. This review aims to analyze the various surgical techniques employed in the management of Peyronie's disease, with a specific focus on patients with complex deformity. METHODS: Articles focusing on the surgical management of complex curvature in Peyronie's disease were searched in MEDLINE and PubMed published between 1990 and 2023. RESULTS: Shortening procedures are linked to penile shortening and are not recommended for complex cases such as notching, hour-glass deformity, or ossified plaque. Lengthening procedures are suitable for addressing complex curvatures without erectile dysfunction (ED) and are a more appropriate method for multiplanar curvatures. Penile prosthesis implantation (IPP), with or without additional procedures, is the gold standard for patients with ED and Peyronie's disease. IPP should also be the preferred option for cases of penile instability (hinge deformity) and has shown high satisfaction rates in all complex cases. CONCLUSION: While surgical interventions for complex curvature in Peyronie's disease carry inherent risks, careful patient selection, meticulous surgical techniques, and post-operative care can help minimize complications and maximize positive outcome.

Development and validation of 3-dimensional simulators for penile prosthesis surgery.

BACKGROUND: The acquisition of skills in penile prosthesis surgery has many limitations mainly due to the absence of simulators and models for training. Three-dimensional (3D) printed models can be utilized for surgical simulations, as they provide an opportunity to practice before entering the operating room and provide better understanding of the surgical approach. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate and validate a 3D model of human male genitalia for penile prosthesis surgery. METHODS: This study included 3 evaluation and validation stages. The first stage involved verification of the 3D prototype model for anatomic landmarks compared with a cadaveric pelvis. The second stage involved validation of the improved model for anatomic accuracy and teaching purposes with the Rochester evaluation score. The third stage comprised validation of the suitability of the 3D prototype model as a surgical simulator and for skill acquisition. The third stage was performed at 3 centers using a modified version of a pre-existing, validated questionnaire and correlated with the Rochester evaluation score. OUTCOME: We sought to determine the suitability of 3D model for training in penile prosthesis surgery in comparison with the available cadaveric model. RESULTS: The evaluation revealed a high Pearson correlation coefficient (0.86) between questions of the Rochester evaluation score and modified validated questionnaire. The 3D model scored 4.33 ± 0.57 (on a Likert scale from 1 to 5) regarding replication of the relevant human anatomy for the penile prosthesis surgery procedure. The 3D model scored 4.33 ± 0.57 (on a Likert scale from 1 to 5) regarding its ability to improve technical skills, teach and practice the procedure, and assess a surgeon's ability. Furthermore, the experts stated that compared with the cadaver, the 3D model presented greater ethical suitability, reduced costs, and easier accessibility. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A validated 3D model is a suitable alternative for penile prosthesis surgery training. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first validated 3D hydrogel model for penile prosthesis surgery teaching and training that experts consider suitable for skill acquisition. Because specific validated guidelines and questionnaires for the validation and verifications of 3D simulators for penile surgery are not available, a modified questionnaire was used. CONCLUSION: The current 3D model for penile prosthesis surgery shows promising results regarding anatomic properties and suitability to train surgeons to perform penile implant surgery. The possibility of having an ethical, easy-to-use model with lower costs and limited consequences for the environment is encouraging for further development of the models.

Long-term outcomes after plaque excision grafting for Peyronie's disease and subanalysis of patients who undergo the procedure despite preoperative counseling against it.

BACKGROUND: Plaque excision and grafting (PEG) has been recommended for patients with Peyronie's disease (PD) with >60° curvature and/or hinge effect and strong preoperative erections, while placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is recommended when rigidity is suboptimal. Nevertheless, many patients counseled to undergo an IPP decline and insist on proceeding with PEG due to personal preference or desire to avoid an implant. AIM: We aim to review long-term outcomes in patients who underwent PEG for PD at our institution and investigate whether there is any difference in long-term outcomes in patients who undergo PEG despite a recommendation to undergo IPP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review from 2007 to 2021 on PEG surgery performed at a single tertiary care institution in patients ≥18 years old who had >3 months of follow-up. OUTCOMES: Postoperative information was gathered from the electronic medical record, including postoperative erectile function, patient satisfaction, and the ability to engage in penetrative sexual intercourse. RESULTS: An overall 251 patients underwent PEG with a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR, 6-54). Among these, 54 (22%) were initially advised to undergo IPP but elected for PEG. Patients who underwent PEG despite counseling to undergo IPP reported lower postoperative ability to engage in intercourse (51% vs 76%). Seven (13%) patients initially advised to undergo IPP eventually received an IPP, relative to 7 (4%) initially advised to undergo PEG. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Thorough preoperative assessment of erectile function and penile deformity can guide clinician counseling and manage patient expectations during decision making between PEG surgery and IPP implantation for PD. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, high attrition to follow-up, and risk of recall and selection bias. This is a large study with a median follow-up of 12 months, with a high-volume single surgeon who treats patients in a specialized population of complex cases. CONCLUSION: Patients who were initially counseled to undergo IPP due to suboptimal erectile rigidity but elected for PEG had worse postoperative ability to engage in penetrative intercourse, and a higher proportion of these patients eventually received an IPP.

Mid-term outcomes of minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: A single-center study and literature review.

BACKGROUND: The minimally invasive infrapubic approach (MIIA) for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement has shown favorable peri-operative safety and efficacy profile, but scarce data exist on long-term follow-up. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the safety and efficacy of IPP implantation via the MIIA after a minimum 5-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified data of implanted patients prospectively included in our institutional database. Complications and functional outcomes were assessed by using validated tools. Specifically, quality of life and patient satisfaction were evaluated by the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaire. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze IPP survival (defined as a working IPP). RESULTS: Overall, 67 patients implanted by MIIA with a median (IQR) age of 64 years (61-70) were included. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 71 months (63-80). Fifteen (22%) patients experienced complications: minor (Clavien ≤2) events included changes in penile sensitivity (n = 1; 1.5%), orgasmic dysfunction (n = 1; 1.5%), pain (n = 5; 7%), urinary tract infection (n = 2; 3%), and chronic discomfort (n = 1; 1.5%); major (Clavien 3) complications were represented by mechanical failure (n = 3; 4.5%), IPP infection (n = 1; 1.5%), and cylinder protrusion (n = 1; 1.5%). The estimated IPP survival was 94% (95% CI, 91.4-96.6), 92.5% (95% CI, 89.7-95.3), and 92.5% (95% CI, 89.7-95.3) at 3, 5, and 7 years after implantation, respectively. In patients using the device at follow-up (n = 61; 91%), median (IQR) scores for QoLSPP domains demonstrated favorable functional outcomes and patient satisfaction: functional 21 (19-23), personal 16 (15-18), relational 14 (12-15), and social 12 (11-14). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study represents the longest follow-up using validated tools to assess the outcomes of IPP implantation via MIIA so far. IPP placement via MIIA confirms to be safe and to offer high satisfaction to both patients and partners at mid-term evaluation.

Penoscrotal approach for inflatable penile prosthesis implant: why it should be preferred.

INTRODUCTION: Inflatable penile prosthesis are the definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction. The two most used surgical approaches to position the implants are the penoscrotal and the infrapubic. Current trends showed that the penoscrotal approach is extensively preferred however, there is not conclusive evidence demonstrating the superiority of one technique over the other. The aim of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence available and to underline strengths and weaknesses of the two techniques. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed to identify relevant published articles. The included studies had to explicitly examine the use of three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis with a focus on the surgical access method and complications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-six articles were included in the review: seven narrative reviews, five retrospective observational studies, five prospective observational studies, and nine mixed methodology studies. The most frequent approach was the penoscrotal, which was also found more comfortable (RG1) by the operators in one study. The infrapubic approach lasts less and one study demonstrated higher satisfaction by the patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of significant differences in complications among the penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches. While the infrapubic approach is faster and patients were more satisfied, the penoscrotal approach is the most used by far. This is likely related to the more straightforward procedure through this access and the excellent surgical field exposure. For these reasons, it is also preferred in the most complex cases.

Evaluation of patient satisfaction using the validated French version of the SSIPI questionnaire after inflatable penile implantation.

BACKGROUND: Penile prothesis (PP) is a recommended treatment for erectile dysfunction that is refractory to less invasive treatments, but there are few validated tools to assess patient satisfaction. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction after PP implantation using the French Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI) questionnaire. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and perioperative data were collected from all consecutive patients who underwent PP implantation in our center between 2016 and 2021. The French SSIPI questionnaire was completed during a telephone call with each patient by an independent investigator. OUTCOMES: A good functional result was considered when the total SSIPI score was >48, corresponding to a score of >3 for each item. RESULTS: The median global SSIPI score for the cohort was 66 (interquartile range [IQR], 60-73), and 53 (89.8%) patients were satisfied. The appearance of the penis with the PP was the item that had the lowest score for satisfaction (median score 23 [IQR, 19-26]), while the patients reported almost no pain (median score 10 [IQR, 9-10]). When patients with a total score of ≤64 were compared with those with a score of >64, PP size was significantly greater in the group with better functional results (P = .03). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Assessment of patient satisfaction with a PP is important because this is the main criterion used to judge the success of surgery. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the satisfaction of patients with a PP using the French-validated version of SSIPI questionnaire. However, patients came from a single center and the population size was small. CONCLUSION: Almost 90% of patients with a PP were satisfied with the device when satisfaction was assessed using the SSIPI questionnaire.

Lightweight macroporous mesh can be used for corporal reconstruction during penile prosthesis surgery.

BACKGROUND: Options to reinforce or reconstruct the corpora cavernosa during penile prosthesis surgery are limited. Synthetic grafts may confer a higher infection risk. Lightweight macroporous mesh is a promising alternative due to better integration and tissue ingrowth. AIM: The study sought to report the first experience of using lightweight mesh to reinforce or reconstruct the corpora. METHODS: The medical records of all patients undergoing insertion or revision of penile prosthesis between May 2016 and May 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient characteristics, management, and outcomes were extracted in which mesh was used for corporal reconstruction. Poliglecaprone-25/polypropylene mesh (UltraPro) was used in all cases. The surgical technique and alternatives were summarized. OUTCOMES: The outcomes were infection rate, postoperative complications by Clavien-Dindo classification, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Mesh was required during penile prosthesis surgery in 21 men (median age 56 [range, 18-74] years). Reasons for reconstruction were severe corporal fibrosis (n = 6), impending erosion (n = 6), crossover/perforation (n = 6), congenital corporal agenesis (n = 2), and excision of Peyronie's plaque. All but 2 patients (with corporal agenesis) presented for revision penile prosthesis surgery with a median number of previous revision attempts of 2 (range, 1-5). Two (10%) patients required explant after a mean follow-up of 23 ± 8.7 months. One man developed infection of the device 2 years after surgery, translating to an infection rate of 5% despite a high prevalence of diabetes (25%) in this cohort. Another required explantation due to debilitating chronic pain after 3 months. Further revision surgery for stiction syndrome was required in a third patient. Finally, another man was not satisfied with the position of the pump within the scrotum or the axial rigidity of the device, despite a second opinion suggesting no issues with the device. All men were sexually active following surgery. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A lightweight mesh can be considered to reinforce or reconstruct the corpora cavernosa in complex cases in which there are no alternative techniques available. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study using a lightweight macroporous mesh for revision penile prosthesis surgery. This was a well-characterized cohort of patients. A larger cohort with 5-year follow-up would be preferable. CONCLUSION: These early results suggest that a lightweight macroporous mesh may be an acceptable synthetic graft for corporal reconstruction. Poliglecaprone-25/polypropylene mesh may be ideal because it is partially absorbable, easy to handle, and not bulky.

Maximizing outcomes in penile prosthetic surgery: exploring strategies to prevent and manage infectious and non-infectious complications.

Inflatable Penile Prostheses (IPP) implantation is a surgical treatment for patients desiring definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction. While this procedure has proven to be effective, it also carries its own set of unique risks that need to be carefully considered. The article reviews the current understanding of complications associated with penile prosthetic surgery and provides strategies to mitigate these adverse events. This article covers various aspects of IPP implantation, including the risks of infection, bleeding, injury to nearby structures, glans ischemia, and device malfunction. It also discusses the importance of careful preoperative screening to identify risk factors and the implementation of infection reduction strategies such as antimicrobial prophylaxis, skin prep, and operative techniques. In addition, it emphasizes the need for postoperative vigilance and prompt management of any complications that may arise. Overall, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the risks and strategies for mitigating complications associated with IPP implantation. Our recommendations are given based on the current consensus in the field and highlight the importance of careful planning, attention to detail, and effective communication between healthcare providers and patients. Despite the potential risks, this review underscores the fact that complications following penile prosthesis implantation are relatively rare.

Single Dilation in Primary Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement Is Associated With Fewer Corporal Complications Than Sequential Dilation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the difference in outcomes between single dilation (SingD) and sequential dilation (SeqD) in primary penile implantation, hypothesizing that patients who undergo SeqD had higher rates of noninfectious complications. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of men undergoing primary inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Intraoperative complications and postoperative noninfectious outcomes were assessed between the two groups. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of complications. RESULTS: A total of 3293 patients met inclusion criteria. After matching, there were 379 patients who underwent SingD and 379 patients who underwent SeqD. There was no significant difference in intraoperative complications between patients who underwent SingD vs SeqD, nor was there any difference in cylinder length (20 cm with interquartile range [IQR] 18-21 cm vs 20 cm with IQR 18-20 cm respectively, P = .4). On multivariable analysis, SeqD (OR 5.23 with IQR 2.74-10, P < .001) and older age (OR 1.04 with IQR 1.01-1.06, P = .007) were predictive of postoperative noninfectious complications. There was no significant difference in intraoperative complications between patients who underwent SingD vs SeqD, nor was there any difference in cylinder length. SeqD and older age were predictive of postoperative noninfectious complications. CONCLUSION: During inflatable penile prosthesis placement in the uncomplicated patient without fibrosis, SingD is a safe technique to utilize during implantation that will minimize postoperative adverse events, and promote device longevity without loss of cylinder length.

Three-dimensional printed hydrogel model vs cadaver: comparing inflatable penile prosthesis training and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis implantation offers a durable, safe, and effective treatment option for male erectile dysfunction; however, many urologists feel apprehensive and uncomfortable placing penile prostheses due to limited training, low surgical experience, and intra- and postoperative complication management. AIM: To compare a previously validated hydrogel inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) training model with cadaver simulations across 4 main categories: anatomic replication and realism, procedural replication and realism, educational effectiveness, and efficacy and safety. METHODS: An overall 88 participants (15 attendings, 18 fellows, and 55 residents) performed guided IPP placements on a cadaver and a hydrogel model. Based on a 5-point Likert scale, postsurveys were used to assess the participants' opinions regarding anatomic replication and realism, procedural replication and realism, educational effectiveness, and safety between the hydrogel model and cadavers. OUTCOMES: A direct head-to-head scenario was created, allowing participants to fully utilize the hydrogel model and cadaver, which ensured the most accurate comparison possible. RESULTS: A total of 84% agreed that the hydrogel model replicates the relevant human cadaveric anatomy for the procedure, whereas 69% agreed that the hydrogel tissue resembles the appearance of cadaveric tissue. Regarding the pubic bone, outer skin, corporal bodies, dartos layer, and scrotum, 79%, 74%, 82%, 46%, and 30% respectively agreed that the hydrogel tissue resembled the texture/behavior of cadavers. Furthermore, 66% of participants agreed that the hydrogel model replicates all the procedural steps. Specifically, participants agreed that the model replicates the skin incision/dartos dissection (74%), placement of stay suture and corporotomy (92%), corporal dilation (81%), measurement of prosthetic size (98%), reservoir placement (43%), IPP placement (91%), scrotal pump placement (48%), and skin closure (51%). Finally, 86%, 93%, and 78% agreed that the hydrogel model is useful for improving technical skills, as a teaching/practicing tool, and as an evaluation tool, respectively. To conclude, 81% of participants stated that they would include the hydrogel model platform in their current training. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: By replicating the IPP procedure, the hydrogel model offers an additional high-fidelity training opportunity for urologists, allowing them to improve their skills and confidence in placing penile prostheses, with the goal of improving patient surgical outcomes. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The hydrogel training model allows users to perform the entire IPP placement procedure with high anatomic realism and educational effectiveness, maintaining many of the high-fidelity benefits seen in cadavers while improving safety and accessibility. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, this high-fidelity nonbiohazardous training model can be used to supplement and bolster current IPP training curriculums.

Intermediate-term results of TachoSil grafting to correct residual curvature during inflatable penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie's disease.

Grafting techniques may be mandatory to improve residual penile curvature during inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation in Peyronie's disease patients. We aimed to report the intermediate-term outcomes of grafting with TachoSil (Corza Health, San Diego, USA) in patients with severe erectile dysfunction and concomitant complex Peyronie's disease through a prospective cohort study. We included 25 patients that underwent the PICS (penile implant in combination with Sealing) technique from 2017 to 2020 and were evaluated 24 months after surgery. Their mean age was 61.8 ± 8.7 years. Total straightness of the penis was achieved in 21 cases, while 4 (16%) patients presented a residual penile curvature of less than 15°. The mean penile length increased significantly (15 ± 1.2 to 16.4 ± 1.6 cm, p < 0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred, while, postoperatively, two patients developed fever and three scrotal hematoma, which resolved spontaneously. At three and six weeks, as well as at 24 months after surgery, no further complications occurred, and no cases of penile glans hyposensitivity were observed. At the 24-month follow-up evaluation, the 5-item score of the International Index of Erectile Function was 23.7 ± 1.4 (range: 20.5-25) and all patients responded positively to questions 2 and 3 of the sexual encounter profile questionnaire (p < 0.001 for all outcomes compared to baseline). Accordingly, the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction score improved from 45.8 ± 6 at baseline to 25.6 ± 4.6 at 24 months, p < 0.001. Grafting with TachoSil to improve residual penile curvature during IPP is a safe and effective procedure. Nevertheless, careful patient selection and counseling, surgeon's experience with the technique, and strict postoperative penile rehabilitation are the main factors for treatment success and high satisfaction rates.

The role of tissue biomechanics in the implantation and performance of inflatable penile prostheses: current state of the art and future perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) affects to some degree approximately 52% of the male population aged 40-70 years. Many men do not respond to, or are precluded from using, pharmaceutical treatments for ED and are therefore advised to consider penile prostheses. Different types of penile prosthesis are available, such as inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs). IPPs consist of a pair of inflatable cylinders inserted into the corpora cavernosa (CC). During inflation/deflation of these cylinders, the CC and other surrounding tissues such as the tunica albuginea (TA) are highly impacted. Therefore, it is critical to understand the mechanics of penile tissues for successful implantation of IPPs and to reduce tissue damage induced by IPPs. OBJECTIVES: We explored the importance of the biomechanics of penile tissues for successful IPP function and reviewed and summarized the most significant studies on penile biomechanics that have been reported to date. METHODS: We performed an extensive literature review of publications on penile biomechanics and IPP implantation. RESULTS: Indenters have been used to characterize the mechanical behavior of whole penile tissue; however, this technique applied only local deformation, which limited insights into individual tissue components. Although one reported study addressed the mechanical behavior of TA, this investigation did not consider anisotropy, and there is a notable absence of biomechanical studies on CC and CS. This lack of understanding of penile tissue biomechanics has resulted in computational models that use linear-elastic materials, despite soft tissues generally exhibiting hyperelastic behavior. Furthermore, available benchtop/synthetic models do not have tissue properties matched to those of the human penis, limiting the scope of these models for use as preclinical testbeds for IPP testing. CONCLUSION: Improved understanding of penile tissue biomechanics would assist the development of realistic benchtop/synthetic and computational models enabling the long-term performance of IPPs to be better assessed.

Mechanical indications for inflatable penile prosthesis revision: analysis and implications for revision surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite technical advancements, inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) are inherently at risk of mechanical failure given their nature as hydraulic devices. AIM: To characterize IPP component failure location at the time of device revision and stratify by manufacturer: American Medical Systems (Boston Scientific [BSCI]) and Coloplast (CP). METHODS: A retrospective review of penile prosthesis cases from July 2007 to May 2022 was conducted, identifying men who underwent revision surgery. Cases were excluded if documentation did not denote the cause of failure or the manufacturer. Mechanical indications for surgery were categorized by location (eg, tubing, cylinder, or reservoir leak; pump malfunction). Nonmechanical revisions were excluded (component herniation, erosion, or crossover). Categorical variables were assessed with Fisher exact or chi-square analysis; Student t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for continuous variables. OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes included specific location of IPP mechanical failure among BSCI and CP devices and time to mechanical failure. RESULTS: We identified 276 revision procedures, 68 of which met inclusion criteria (46 BSCI and 22 CP). Revised CP devices were longer than BSCI devices (median cylinder length, 20 vs 18 cm; P < .001). Log-rank analysis revealed a similar time to mechanical failure between brands (P = .096). CP devices failed most often due to tubing fracture (19/22, 83%). BSCI devices had no predominant site of failure. Between manufacturers, tubing failure was more common in CP devices (19/22 vs 15/46 for BSCI, P < .001), while cylinder failure was more common among BSCI devices (10/46 vs 0/22 for CP, P = .026). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The distribution of mechanical failure is significantly different between BSCI and CP devices; this has implications regarding the approach to revision surgery. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study to directly compare when and where mechanical failure occurs in IPPs and to compare the 2 main manufacturers head-to-head. This study would be strengthened by being repeated in a multi-institutional fashion to provide more robust and objective evaluation. CONCLUSION: CP devices commonly failed at the tubing and rarely elsewhere, while BSCI devices showed no predominant failure site; these findings may inform decision making regarding revision surgery.

Anatomic considerations of inflatable penile prosthetics: lessons gleaned from surgical body donor workshops.

Surgical implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) remains the gold-standard treatment for severe erectile dysfunction. The ideal surgical technique requires a thorough understanding of the relevant anatomy. This includes anatomic considerations related to, but not limited to, dissection and exposure of penoscrotal fasciae and tissues, corporal configuration, and abdominal structures. Insights obtained from pre-dissected anatomic specimens can obviate urethral injury, nerve damage, corporal perforation, inappropriate sizing, crossover, or implant malposition. We present penile implant-specific anatomic dissections and topographic landmarks identified over the last decade in the course of surgical training programs provided for IPP implantation.

Subcoronal inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: indications and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: While implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is commonly performed via infrapubic or penoscrotal approaches, the subcoronal (SC) approach for IPP implantation may safely and reliably allow for additional reconstructive procedures through a single incision. AIM: The aim of this study is to report outcomes, including complications, of the SC approach and to determine common characteristics of patients undergoing the SC approach. METHODS: A retrospective chart review from May 11, 2012, to January 31, 2022, was performed at a single, tertiary care institution to identify patients with IPP implantation via the SC approach. OUTCOMES: Postoperative information was reviewed and extracted from all clinic notes available following the date of IPP implantation in the electronic medical record, detailing any complications including wound complications, need for revision or removal, device malfunction, and infections. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients had IPP implantation via the SC approach. Median follow-up duration was 29.4 (interquartile range 14.9-50.1) months. One (1.8%) patient had a simple wound complication. Two (3.6%) experienced postoperative infection of the prosthesis, which resulted in explantation of the device. One of these infected prostheses later experienced partial glans necrosis. Revision for mechanical failure or unsatisfactory cosmetic result was performed in 3 (7.3%) IPPs placed via a SC incision. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The SC approach for implantation of IPP is safe and feasible with low complication and revision rates. It offers urologists an alternative to the classic infrapubic and penoscrotal approaches, both of which would require a second incision for additional reconstructive procedures required to adequately address deformities associated with severe Peyronie's disease. Therefore, urologists who treat these specialized populations of men may benefit from having the SC approach in their array of techniques for IPP implantation. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, risk of selection bias, lack of comparison groups, and sample size. This study reports on early experience with the SC approach performed by a single high-volume reconstructive surgeon, who treats a specialized population of patients requiring complex repair during implantation of an IPP, particularly those with Peyronie's disease. CONCLUSION: The SC incision for IPP implantation has low rates of complications and remains our approach of choice for IPP implantation in patients with severe Peyronie's disease, including curvatures >60°, severe indentation with hinge, and grade 3 calcification, which are unlikely to respond adequately to manual modeling alone.

Complications and troubleshooting in primary penile prosthetic surgery-a review.

Penile implant surgery is the gold standard to treat erectile dysfunction with success rates of over 90%. The first penile implants were developed in the early 1900s. Since then, several types of implants have been developed including malleable implants, two-piece inflatable implants, and three-piece inflatable implants. The three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis, which was introduced in 1973, is the most widely used type of penile implant in the United States. Penile implant surgery has undergone numerous advancements over the years, improving outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, as with any surgical procedure, there are risks and complications associated with penile implant surgery. It is important for surgeons to understand these potential complications and to have strategies in place to manage and prevent them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their patients.

Residual penile curvature correction by modeling during penile prosthesis implantation in Peyronie's disease patients.

With the advent of new surgical techniques to treat Peyronie's disease with concomitant erectile dysfunction, there remains a question of whether manual modeling (MM), an older technique, still has a place in the treatment algorithm within penile prosthesis (PP) surgery. While the implantation of a PP often corrects moderate to severe curvature, penile curvature can remain greater than 30°, even when concurrent MM is performed during prothesis implantation. There are new variations of the MM technique that have been recently utilized in the intraoperative and postoperative setting to achieve penile curvature less than 30° when the implant is fully inflated. The inflatable PP, regardless of the specific model of choice, is preferred over the noninflatable PP when utilizing the MM technique. MM should be the first line of treatment for persisting intraoperative penile curvature after the placement of a PP due to its long-term efficacy, noninvasive approach, and significantly low risk of adverse effects.