Treatment of male stress urinary incontinence at time of inflatable penile prosthesis placement a review of contemporary literature.

Background and Objective: Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and erectile dysfunction (ED) are well established diagnoses within Men's Health, often more specifically within the prostate cancer survivorship cohort. Taken individually, well defined treatment algorithms exist with which many surgeons are comfortable; however, treatment of both in a single setting or staged fashion introduces complexity. Emerging treatment options also exist, and there is immature or minimal data when these are combined with inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion, radiation history, and/or variable degrees of incontinence. Our objective was to describe and summarize the currently available treatment options for SUI particularly at the time of IPP insertion. Methods: A literature review was performed to summarize contemporary treatment of SUI at time of IPP placement. Anecdotal experience was added from high volume, subspecialty trained Men's Health and Reconstructive Urologists. Key Content and Findings: Non-invasive approaches such as pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), behavioral modification, and external compression devices play some limited role in treatment and/or management of SUI, particularly in the early post operative period, or for those unwilling or unable to undergo more definitive intervention. More invasive options such as artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation, male sling, or other implantable devices are more appropriate for good surgical candidates with higher bother and/or more severe incontinence. These options can be concomitant or staged relative to IPP placement. Climacturia, particularly with mild or no bothersome SUI, can successfully be addressed at the time of penile prosthesis placement with the utilization of the Mini-Jupette suburethral sling. Conclusions: A variety of treatment options exist for concomitant treatment of SUI at time of IPP, and both safety and efficacy have been demonstrated for many in the same operative setting. As with treatment of ED or SUI in isolation, patient selection, careful counseling, and management of expectations can lead to high patient satisfaction.

Evaluation of a nitinol stone retrieval basket as an alternative to biopsy forceps for biopsy of suspected upper tract genitourinary malignancies.

Background: The anatomical nature of the ureteroscopic approach for biopsy of upper urothelial tract tumors requires the utilization of small instruments, often limiting biopsy specimen quality. This leads to lower-than-desired tumor grading accuracy and malignancy detection capabilities on the initial evaluation of upper tract tumor specimens. This is problematic because optimal treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) depends on early disease detection and subsequent accurate diagnosis. Objective: The objective of our study was to compare the biopsy capabilities of two ureteroscopic biopsy instruments - biopsy forceps and the nitinol stone retrieval basket. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of ten patients who underwent biopsy of an upper tract mass with either instrument. Average specimen size, muscularis propria presence, and malignancy detection sensitivity were the variables of interest. Results: The nitinol stone retrieval basket obtained larger biopsy samples than the biopsy forceps, with average biopsy volumes being 0.0674 cm3 and 0.0075 cm3, respectively (P = 0.00017); this was the only statistically significant result of our study. Muscularis propria was present in 31% (4/13) of the biopsies with the nitinol stone retrieval basket, whereas 0% (0/5) of the biopsy forceps biopsies contained muscularis propria (P = 0.2778). Regarding malignancy detection sensitivity, the nitinol stone retrieval basket biopsies identified malignancy in 100% of the specimens that had confirmed malignancy; the biopsy forceps only detected malignancy 40% of the time (P = 0.4134). Conclusion: These findings suggest that the nitinol stone retrieval basket is a useful diagnostic tool for UTUC, although further investigation is warranted to determine its superiority compared to biopsy forceps.

Does Medicaid Cover Penile Prosthesis Surgery? A State-by-State Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Malleable [MPP] and inflatable [IPP] penile prosthesis surgery for the management of erectile dysfunction is a reliable treatment option with high success rates and excellent patient satisfaction; however, Medicaid coverage transparency is poor leaving a knowledge gap in this population. AIM: The present study seeks to assess Medicaid coverage for MPP and IPP by state as evidenced by inclusion in publicly available physician fee schedules. METHODS: State Medicaid websites were utilized to access public physician fee schedules. Individual search queries were performed for CPT codes 54400 and 54405 which represent insertion of MPP and IPP, respectively. Data were recorded for each device, including the coverage status, physician fees, and the presence of clear documentation of a prior authorization requirement. OUTCOMES: Medicaid physician fee schedules were accessible for 49 out of 50 US states, and 28 states reported coverage for at least one type of penile prosthesis. RESULTS: Two states reported coverage for MPP only, one state reported coverage for IPP only, and 24 states reported coverage for both devices. One state reported that it did not cover either device, but listed coverage for a self-contained IPP (CPT 54401) only. Mean physician reimbursement was $477.15 (290.82-$1175.50) for MPP placement and $691.76 (421.68-$1794.27) for IPP. Eleven states documented prior authorization requirements within their fee schedules, while the remaining 17 states did not. Criteria for approval for prior authorization were not clearly stated in any fee schedule. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Efforts to clearly document approval criteria and educate Men's Health providers on available coverage could result in a significant improvement in sexual satisfaction in the Medicaid population. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Graphical representation of states offering Medicaid penile prosthetic coverage and physician reimbursement ranges are provided with comparison to Medicare rates. Limitations include heterogeneity in fee schedules, lack of prior authorization requirement details, inability to correlate to successful claims data, and the evolving nature of Medicaid coverage for the given procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid coverage exists for penile prosthetic surgery in 28 states, although often with significant, non-transparent prior authorization criteria. Barnard JT, Grimaud L, Yafi FA. Does Medicaid Cover Penile Prosthesis Surgery? A State-by-State Analysis. J Sex Med 2021;18:1455-1460.