Does climate impact inflatable penile prosthesis infection (IPP) risk? Assessment of temperature and dew point on IPP infections.

BACKGROUND: Variations in climate have been associated with a greater risk of surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, and changes in the skin microbiome; however, limited data exist on the impact of climate on inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infections. AIM: We sought to evaluate the impact of climate on the risk of IPP infections in a large international, multicenter cohort. METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients undergoing IPP surgery. We then evaluated whether the month or season, during which surgery was performed, affected device infections. Implant infections were defined as infections requiring device explantation. A univariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken. OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome was implant infection. RESULTS: A total of 5289 patients with a mean age of 62.2 ± 10.8 years received IPP placement. There was a fairly even distribution of implants performed in each season. A total of 103 (1.9%) infections were recorded. There were 32 (31.1%) IPP infections in patients who underwent surgery in the summer, followed by 28 (27.2%) in the winter, 26 (25.2%) in the spring, and 17 (16.5%) in the fall. No statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of season (P = .19) and month (P = .29). The mean daily temperature (P = .43), dew point (P = .43), and humidity (P = .92) at the time of IPP placement was not associated with infection. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings provide reassurance to prosthetic urologists that infection reduction strategies do not need to be tailored to local climate. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Climate data were not directly recorded for each hospital, but rather based on the monthly averages in the city where the surgery was performed. CONCLUSION: The climate at time of IPP placement and time of year of surgery is not associated with IPP infection risk.

AUA-recommended Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Primary Penile Implantation Results in a Higher, Not Lower, Risk for Postoperative Infection: A Multicenter Analysis.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to determine if the AUA-recommended prophylaxis (vancomycin + gentamicin alone) for primary inflatable penile prosthesis surgery is associated with a higher infection risk than nonstandard regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of patients undergoing primary inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Patients were divided into those receiving vancomycin + gentamicin alone and those receiving any other regimen. A Cox proportional-hazards model was constructed adjusted for major predictors. A subgroup analysis to identify the appropriate dosage of gentamicin was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 4,161 patients underwent primary inflatable penile prosthesis placement (2,411 received vancomycin + gentamicin alone and 1,750 received other regimens). The infection rate was similar between groups, 1% vs 1.2% for standard vs nonstandard prophylaxis. In the multivariable analysis, vancomycin + gentamicin (HR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.4 to 5.4, P = .004) and diabetes (HR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.4, P = .04) were significantly associated with a higher risk of infection. Antifungals (HR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.19, P < .001) were associated with lower risk of infection. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rate between weight-based gentamicin compared to 80 mg gentamicin (HR: 2.9, 95% CI: 0.83 to 10, P = .1). CONCLUSIONS: Vancomycin + gentamicin alone for antibiotic prophylaxis for primary inflatable penile prosthesis surgery is associated with a higher infection risk than nonstandard antibiotic regimens while antifungal use is associated with lower infection risk. A critical review of the recommended antimicrobial prophylactic regimens is needed. Prospective research is needed to further elucidate best practices in inflatable penile prosthesis antimicrobial prophylaxis.

A Multicenter Investigation Examining American Urological Association Recommended Antibiotic Prophylaxis vs Nonstandard Prophylaxis in Preventing Device Infections in Penile Prosthesis Surgery in Diabetic Patients.

PURPOSE: American Urological Association (AUA) antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations may be insufficient for covering organisms commonly found in penile prosthesis infections. In this study we assess the difference between AUA recommended antibiotic prophylaxis and nonstandard prophylaxis in preventing device infections in penile prosthesis surgery performed in diabetic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of diabetic patients undergoing primary penile prosthesis surgery was performed between April 2003 and August 2018. Eighteen institutions from the United States, Europe and Korea contributed. The association between antibiotic prophylaxis type and postoperative penile prosthesis infections, device explantations and revision surgeries was assessed. RESULTS: Standard AUA antibiotic prophylaxis was followed in 48.6% (391) of cases while nonstandard prophylaxis was used in 51.4% (413). Common nonstandard antibiotic prophylaxis included vancomycin-gentamycin-fluoroquinolone, clindamycin-fluoroquinolone, and vancomycin-fluoroquinolone among other combinations. Patients who received AUA prophylaxis had significantly more postoperative device infections (5.6% vs 1.9%, p <0.01) and explantations (8.3% vs 2.0%, p <0.001) compared to those who received nonstandard prophylaxis. Patients who received AUA prophylaxis had significantly higher odds of a postoperative device infection (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.3) and explantation (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.4-9.1) compared to those who received nonstandard prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic men with erectile dysfunction who received standard AUA prophylaxis for penile prosthesis surgery had significantly greater odds of experiencing a postoperative device infection and device explantation compared to patients who received nonstandard prophylaxis. Our study provides a strong rationale for a prospective investigation to establish the most appropriate prophylaxis strategy in penile prosthesis surgery.

The Absence of a Validated English-Language Survey to Assess Prosthesis Satisfaction: A Prospective Cohort Using the Sexual Quality of Life After Penile Prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Prior assessments of sexual quality of life (SQoL) after penile prosthesis implantation have been performed without validated implant-specific tools. The Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaire was designed and validated in Italian to specifically evaluate SQoL after a penile prosthesis is placed. AIM: We aim to better characterize prosthesis-specific SQoL after inflatable penile prosthesis placement using the English translation of the QoLSPP questionnaire. METHODS: A total of 395 consecutive patients received an inflatable penile prosthesis between January 1, 2009 and November 27, 2017, and 270 had functional emails to whom the QoLSPP questionnaire was sent. 90 surveys were completed by 75 first-time implantees and 15 patients who underwent removal/replacement surgery. Responses were considered positive if ≥ 3. Among first-time implantees, subpopulation analysis was carried out by age at survey completion (<55 years, 55-65 years, and ≥66 years), age of penile prosthesis at survey completion (<1 year, 1-5 years, and >5 years), device model (Coloplast Titan, AMS 700 CX, and AMS LGX), history of a psychiatric diagnosis, etiology of erectile dysfunction, total device length > or ≤ 21 cm, diabetes status, and body mass index < /≥ 30. Responses were analyzed in R using t-tests for continuous variables and Chi-squared tests (Fisher's for small counts) for categorical variables. OUTCOMES: The main outcome measure of this study was sexual quality of life assessed by QoLSPP. RESULTS: Patients completed the survey on average 3.15 years from their most recent prosthesis placement. 84% of first-time implantees had positive responses. Among them, there were no significant differences in the proportion of positive responses by device type, age, history of a psychiatric diagnosis, total implanted device length, etiology of erectile dysfunction, diabetes, or body mass index statuses (all P > .05). There was no difference in SQoL between first-time implantees and those who underwent removal/replacement surgery (P = 1.0). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients experience a positive impact on their SQoL following implantation of a penile prosthesis. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Our study is the first to apply the English language QoLSPP which demonstrates high prosthesis specific SQoL but is limited by size and a lack of a validated English language tool. CONCLUSIONS: The positive impact on patients' SQoL with penile prosthesis is 84% when assessed by the English QoLSPP questionnaire. While these results mirror those reported from Italy, the English-speaking patient population is plagued with a lack of a validated tool to assess satisfaction, a void the academic and prosthetic community must fill to better understand the impact prostheses have on their patients. Carlos EC, Nosé BD, Barton GJ, et al. The Absence of a Validated English-Language Survey to Assess Prosthesis Satisfaction: A Prospective Cohort Using the Sexual Quality of Life After Penile Prosthesis. J Sex Med 2020;17:2307-2310.

Impact of Antimicrobial Dipping Solutions on Postoperative Infection Rates in Patients With Diabetes Undergoing Primary Insertion of a Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Modern-day penile prostheses use infection retardant coating to decrease rates of postoperative infection, subsequently reducing explantation and revision rates as well. The Coloplast Titan models are dipped into antimicrobial solutions right before implantation, and the components used for dipping can be tailored toward the patient. AIM: To compare infection, explantation, and revision rates among different dipping solutions used before implantation for patients with diabetes receiving a Coloplast Titan implant. METHODS: We systematically reviewed 932 patients with diabetes receiving a primary penile implant across 18 different centers from the period April 2003 to August 2018. Of those patients, 473 received a Coloplast device, whereas 459 received an AMS device. Data regarding the type of antimicrobial solution used before implantation were recorded for 468 patients receiving a Coloplast Titan, including whether or not they suffered a postoperative infection and if they underwent explantation and/or revision. Outcome rates were compared using Fisher's exact and Pearson's chi-square tests, and logistic regression modeling was performed to account for covariates. OUTCOMES: The main outcome measures of this study were postoperative infection, explantation, and revision rates. RESULTS: Of the total 932 patients reviewed, 33 suffered a postoperative infection. Of 468 patients receiving Coloplast implants, there was a 3.4% infection rate. The most commonly used antibiotic combination before dipping was vancomycin + gentamicin (59.0%). There was a significantly lower rate of postoperative infection, explantation, and revision when vancomycin + gentamicin was used than those associated with the use of all other dipping solutions ([1.4% vs 6.4%; P = .004], [1.1% vs 8.3%; P < .001], and [2.5% vs 12.5; P < .001], respectively). After adjusting for age, body mass index, preoperative blood glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c, the use of other dips was an independent predictor of postoperative infection (odds ratio: 0.191; P = .049). The inclusion of rifampin in the dipping solution trended toward being a significant risk factor for infection (P = .057). Including antifungals in the dipping solution did not affect infection (P = .414), explantation (P = .421), or revision (P = .328) rates. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Vancomycin + gentamicin was the most efficacious combination of antibiotics used for dipping in terms of preventing postoperative infection and subsequent explantation and revision. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Data were sampled across multiple institutions providing a large sample that may be more representative of the population of interest. A key limitation of the study was its retrospective nature, which prevented us from controlling certain variables. CONCLUSION: The use of rifampin did not provide the same type of protection, possibly representing a shift in resistance patterns of common bacteria responsible for device infection. Towe M, Huynh LM, Osman MM, et al. Impact of Antimicrobial Dipping Solutions on Postoperative Infection Rates in Patients With Diabetes Undergoing Primary Insertion of a Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis. J Sex Med 2020;17:2077-2083.

Cadaveric Penile Prosthesis Workshop training improves surgical confidence levels of urologists: South Asian Society for Sexual Medicine course survey.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the impact of South Asia's first cadaveric hands-on workshop on urologists' training in inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. METHODS: A total of 72 urologists/andrologists participated in the 2019 South Asian Society for Sexual Medicine Pre-congress Penile Prosthesis hands-on workshop. The workshop included 4 h of lectures and 2 h of hands-on cadaveric laboratory experience using three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used on self-rated procedural confidence levels, which proved the normality. A non-parametric McNemar test was used to examine the change in the number of correct answers. RESULTS: Of those who attended the cadaver laboratory, just 45 who answered the survey both before and after the workshop were included for analysis. Significant objective improvements were noted in procedural knowledge test scores (44.30 ± 0.027 vs 72.44 ± 0.024, P < 0.05) and median surgical confidence levels (4 vs 3 and 2, P < 0.001) of the urologists after the completion of the workshop. CONCLUSIONS: Cadaveric hands-on workshop training improves urologists' procedural knowledge and surgical confidence levels in carrying out three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. The feasibility of such workshops should be considered in increasing the surgical expertise of general urologists in prosthetic urology.

Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: Considerations in Revision Surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an evidence based discussion of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors that lead to successful outcomes in penile prosthesis surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: In the preoperative period, careful patient selection, appropriate counseling, thorough evaluation, and sufficient time for physical and emotional adaptation to an inflatable penile prosthesis are the key. During surgery, the entire device should be explanted whenever possible. A drain and retain strategy for the reservoir is a safe alternative in situation where the reservoir is not easily removable. The mechanical cleansing of lavage is more important than chemical sterilization. Postoperative instructions should be made clear and nursing phone calls may reduce the number of ER visits. Careful preoperative counseling, attention to intraoperative details, and vigilance in the postoperative period are necessary for a successful outcome with penile prosthesis revision surgery.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Urinary Incontinence in a Treatment Seeking Male Prospective Cohort: Results from the LURN Study.

PURPOSE: Male urinary incontinence is thought to be infrequent. We sought to describe the prevalence of urinary incontinence in a male treatment seeking cohort enrolled in the LURN (Symptoms of Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Research Network). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study inclusion and exclusion criteria, including men with prostate cancer or neurogenic bladder, were previously reported. LURN participants prospectively completed questionnaires regarding lower urinary tract symptoms and other clinical variables. Men were grouped based on incontinence type, including 1) no urinary incontinence, 2) post-void dribbling only and 3) urinary incontinence. Comparisons were made using ANOVA and multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of the 477 men 24% reported no urinary incontinence, 44% reported post-void dribbling only and 32% reported urinary incontinence. African American men and those with sleep apnea were more likely to be in the urinary incontinence group than in the no urinary incontinence group (OR 3.2, p = 0.02 and OR 2.73, p = 0.003, respectively). Urinary incontinence was associated with significantly higher bother compared to men without leakage (p <0.001). Compared to men without urinary incontinence and men with only post-void dribbling those with urinary incontinence were significantly more likely to report higher scores (more severe symptoms) on the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) questionnaires regarding bowel issues, depression and anxiety than men without urinary incontinence (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary incontinence is common among treatment seeking men. This is concerning because the guideline recommended questionnaires to assess male lower urinary tract symptoms do not query for urinary incontinence. Thus, clinicians may be missing an opportunity to intervene and improve patient care. This provides a substantial rationale for a new or updated symptom questionnaire which provides a more comprehensive symptom assessment.

Purulent Inflatable Penile Prostheses Can Be Safely Immediately Salvaged in Insulin-Dependent Diabetics.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, contra-indications for immediate salvage of an infected penile prosthesis have included purulence on the device, purulent infections in diabetic patients, and severe diabetes. These clinical principles are from the 1990s to early 2000s and based on limited retrospective series or expert opinion. Since the publication of these contra-indications there have been improvements in device design, surgical technique, corporal washout protocols, and perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis that allow us to re-evaluate whether we can broaden the criteria for immediate salvage of an infected penile prosthesis. AIM: To report whether patients with severe diabetes can safely have a purulent inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) immediately salvaged. METHODS: We considered a "severe diabetic" as a patient whose disease has progressed past diet control and oral medications and, therefore, has insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus (IDDM II). We retrospectively reviewed 6 consecutive patients with IDDM II and a purulent IPP who had been immediately salvaged from July 2011 to November 2017. In addition to immediate exchange, each received catheter-directed anti-microbial intracorporal irrigation and device culture. All patients were discharged home the next day with oral antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Outcomes included repeat penile prosthesis infection or any other complication following immediate salvage. RESULTS: All 6 patients have healed well and remained infection free at their 6- to 8-week post-operative follow-up appointment. 15-39 months after salvage, no patients have had a repeat infection or any other complication. 5 patients received a malleable replacement device and 1 patient was electively converted to an IPP 7 months after his salvage procedure. 1 patient received an IPP during salvage per patient preference. All patients are currently pleased with either their malleable penile prosthesis or IPP. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Immediate salvage attenuates the morbidity associated with an infected penile prosthesis such as irreversible penile shortening and corporal fibrosis. Our findings suggest that more patients than originally thought may be a candidate for immediate salvage. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating outcomes after immediate salvage of a purulent IPP in patients with advanced diabetes. Limitations of the study include the small sample size and retrospective nature. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that those with IDDM II who have a purulent penile prosthesis may be candidates for safe and effective immediate salvage. Peters CE, Carlos EC, Lentz AC. Purulent Inflatable Penile Prostheses Can Be Safely Immediately Salvaged in Insulin-Dependent Diabetics. J Sex Med 2018;15:1673-1677.

Survey on the Contemporary Management of Intraoperative Urethral Injuries During Penile Prosthesis Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative urethral injury is an uncommon event during the placement of a penile prosthesis, and alternative management strategies have been proposed with continuation of implantation after urethral injury. AIM: To evaluate surgeon practices in the management of intraoperative urethral injury. METHODS: An online survey was sent to the society listservs of the Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons (GURS) and the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA). Physicians were queried on their fellowship training, experience with penile prosthesis implantation, and management of urethral injuries during prosthesis placement. The response data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). The χ2 test and Fisher exact test were used to determine associations between variables. OUTCOMES: Survey responses. RESULTS: 131 survey responses were analyzed. Of the responders, 41.2% were GURS fellowship trained, 19.1% were SMSNA trained, 30.5% were non-fellowship trained, and 9.2% were trained in other fellowships. 25.4% of participants performed more than 50 implantations per year, 37.7% performed 20 to 50 per year, and 36.9% performed fewer than 20 per year. Urethral injury during prosthesis implantation was uncommon, with 26.2% reporting 0 injury, 58.5% reporting 1 to 3 injuries, and 15.4% reporting more than 3 career injuries. Injuries were most commonly encountered during corporal dilation (71.1%) compared with corporal exposure (12.5%) or penile straightening maneuvers (7.0%). There was no statistically significant difference with aborting or continuing implantation among GURS-trained, SMSNA-trained, other fellowship-trained, and non-fellowship-trained surgeons. Of all responders, 55% would abort the procedure after distal urethral injury, whereas 45% would continue the procedure with unilateral or bilateral insertion of cylinders. Patient factors that increased likelihood of terminating the procedure in the case of urethral injury included immunosuppression, spinal cord injury, and clean intermittent catheterization dependence. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A urethral injury during penile prosthesis implantation might not mandate termination of the procedure despite classic teaching. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The strength of this study is that it provides difficult to obtain epidemiologic data on the frequency and management of this clinically significant injury. Limitations include the inherent biases from a survey-based study including response bias and recall bias. The survey response rate could not be obtained. CONCLUSION: Urethral injury during penile prosthesis implantation is a rare but clinically significant risk of the procedure, with many variations in management of the injury. Termination and delayed implantation might not be necessary after injury, although long-term outcome data are difficult to obtain. Sexton SJ, Granieri MA, Lentz AC. Survey on the Contemporary Management of Intraoperative Urethral Injuries During Penile Prosthesis Implantation. J Sex Med 2018;15:576-581.

Nurse-Initiated Telephone Follow Up after Ureteroscopic Stone Surgery.

This article presents findings of a quality improvement (QI) project using the DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, and control) model designed to decrease the rate of emergency department (ED) visits and nurse advice line calls after ureteroscopic stone surgery. Results indicated that nurse-initiated follow- up phone calls can decrease ED visits.

The Ohmmeter Identifies the Site of Fluid Leakage during Artificial Urinary Sphincter Revision Surgery.

PURPOSE: While the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter improves continence in up to 90% of patients, revision surgery may be needed in up to 50%. We determined whether an ohmmeter could accurately assess the site of fluid leak from individual components of the artificial urinary sphincter at the time of revision surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery between 1996 and 2013. Patients in whom fluid loss was identified preoperatively by plain film radiography and who subsequently underwent revision surgery using the ohmmeter were assessed for outcomes. RESULTS: The ohmmeter was used intraoperatively in a total of 20 surgeries in 19 patients and it correctly identified the location of fluid loss in 18 of 20 (90%). Fluid leakage was found from the pressure regulating balloon in 13 cases, from the cuff in 4 and from the tubing to the pressure regulating balloon in 1. None had fluid loss from the pump. In the 17 cases in which only the malfunctioning component was replaced a satisfactory postoperative outcome with a fully functional device was documented in all. Repeat surgery was performed in 5 of 17 cases (29.4%) at a median of 17 months (range 2 to 39). No patient underwent repeat surgery due to failure to accurately diagnose a component leak. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of suspected fluid loss as a cause of artificial urinary sphincter malfunction an ohmmeter can identify the site of fluid loss during component revision surgery.

The Artificial Urinary Sphincter is Superior to a Secondary Transobturator Male Sling in Cases of a Primary Sling Failure.

PURPOSE: We compared continence outcomes in patients with post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence treated with a salvage artificial urinary sphincter vs a secondary transobturator sling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients undergoing salvage procedures after sling failure from 2006 to 2012. Postoperative success was defined as the use of 0 or 1 pad, a negative stress test and pad weight less than 8 gm per day. We performed the Wilcoxon test and used a Cox regression model and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 61 men presenting with sling failure were included in study, of whom 32 went directly to an artificial urinary sphincter and 29 received a secondary sling. Of the artificial urinary sphincter cohort 47% underwent prior external beam radiation therapy vs 17% of the secondary sling cohort (p = 0.01). Average preoperative 24 hour pad weight and pad number were higher in the artificial urinary sphincter cohort. Median followup in artificial urinary sphincter and secondary sling cases was 4.5 (IQR 4-12) and 4 months (IQR 1-5), respectively. Overall treatment failure was seen in 55% of patients (16 of 29) with a secondary sling vs 6% (2 of 32) with an artificial urinary sphincter (unadjusted HR 7, 95% CI 2-32 and adjusted HR 6, 95% CI 1-31). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients with post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence and a failed primary sling those who underwent a secondary sling procedure were up to 6 times more likely to have persistent incontinence vs those who underwent artificial urinary sphincter placement. These data are useful for counseling patients and planning surgery. We currently recommend placement of an artificial urinary sphincter for patients in whom an initial sling has failed.

The Evolution of the Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir and Surgical Placement.

The traditional inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoir placement is below the transversalis fascia in the space of Retzius. In 2002, Dr. Steve Wilson described ectopic reservoir placement, thereby providing a safe and effective alternative for implant surgeons. This new approach obviated the need for a second incision and decreased operative times during surgery. In the manuscript, he also described the introduction of a reservoir lock-out valve, which prevents autoinflation of the penile implant. The development of lockout valves and flat reservoirs has contributed to the early success and feasibility of submuscular placement techniques. Thirteen years after Dr. Wilson's pivotal study, this technique should be in the armamentarium of all urologic prosthetic surgeons. Accordingly, in certain subsets of patients, ectopic/ submuscular reservoir site placement should be considered a safe, effective alternative to standard reservoir placement in the space of Retzius.

Technological Improvements in Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Design over the Past 40 Years.

INTRODUCTION: The advent of the penile prosthesis revolutionized the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), resulting in near-complete treatment efficacy and high patient satisfaction rates. While several types of penile prosthesis are available, the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the most commonly used device in the United States. AIMS: To describe the key modifications to IPPs from the two major manufacturers-American Medical Systems (AMS) and Coloplast-since the invention of the IPP, and to relate these changes to improvements in prosthesis function and patient outcomes based on available literature. METHODS: Review and evaluation of the literature between 1973 and present describing modifications in IPP design and the influence of these modifications on IPP durability and patient-related factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data describing the impact of iterative improvements in three-piece IPP design on device function, durability, and patient outcomes. RESULTS: There were progressive improvements in IPP technology from both major manufacturers not only on the durability of the prosthesis but also on patient outcomes, with fewer device failures and lower infection rates. Notable improvements include incorporation of kink-resistant tubing, changes in the weave or addition of shear- and infection-resistant coatings to cylinder layers, pump and tubing connection modifications, the addition of rear tip extenders, and the incorporation of lockout valves to prevent autoinflation. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous incremental modifications to the IPP from both major manufacturers since its invention have increased its durability and improved patient outcomes.

Narrative review of immediate salvage for penile prosthesis infection.

Background and Objective: Implantation of a penile prosthesis is a reliable option for men with erectile dysfunction (ED) refractory to less invasive therapies. While the frequency of penile prosthesis infections have decreased, they remain a devastating complication. Herein we discuss why immediate salvage surgery is an essential technique for the management of implant infections. We will also describe the relevant advancements to this technique. Methods: We conducted a narrative review via computer based search of PubMed for all relevant articles on penile prosthesis infection management, including guidelines, case series, reviews, and expert opinions. Search terms used included: "inflatable penile prosthesis", "IPP", "penile prosthesis", "salvage", "treatment", "delayed", "immediate". Only English peer-reviewed publications were included. Key Content and Findings: Historically, patients who presented with penile prosthesis infections were exclusively managed with complete removal of the prosthesis without replacement. Although this strategy is safe, it hastens immediate ED and corporal fibrosis, resulting in loss of penile length and increased difficulty with subsequent prosthesis replacement. Previous case series have reported successful treatment of localized penile prosthesis infections with nonsurgical treatment, but the role of conservative treatment remains limited. The current standard of immediate salvage entails removal of the infected prosthesis and washout followed by immediate replacement with a new penile prosthesis. This technique has been demonstrated to be safe and effective, thus allowing patients to resume intercourse and maintain penile length. Conclusions: Immediate salvage surgery is safe and effective, and has emerged as the preferred strategy for the management of most patients with a penile prosthesis infection.