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.

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.

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.

Androgens and Urethral Health: How Hypogonadism Affects Postoperative Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Artificial Urinary Sphincter or Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of androgens in penile and urethral health, we sought to understand what impact hypogonadism may have on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) outcomes. We hypothesize that patients with hypogonadism are at increased risk of reinterventions, complications, and infections. METHODS: We queried the TriNetX Global Database in March 2023 for patients receiving an AUS or IPP, looking at lifetime reintervention, complication, and infection rates. We conducted multiple comparisons: (1) eugonadal patients against hypogonadal patients, (2) hypogonadal patients on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) against hypogonadal patients not on TRT, and (3) hypogonadal patients on TRT against eugonadal patients. RESULTS: Hypogonadal patients undergoing AUS had more complications (33.5% vs 28.3%), higher reintervention rates (27.7% vs 24.3%) and higher infection rates (7.3% vs 6.8%), albeit none reaching significance. Hypogonadal patients undergoing IPP had significantly higher infection rates (6.3% vs 4.4%, RR 1.5 (1.04, 2.04)) and reintervention rates (14.9% vs 11.9%, RR 1.3 (1.04, 1.61)), but not complication rates (21.9% vs 18.9%). When comparing patients with hypogonadism on TRT vs off TRT, there was not a significant difference in reinterventions, or complications, in AUS and IPP patients, but there were significantly more infections in IPP patients (7.0% vs 3.9%, RR 1.9 (1.002, 3.5)). CONCLUSION: Hypogonadal patients have more reinterventions, complications, and infections following urologic implant surgery, to varying levels of significance. TRT may not be completely protective to improve tissue health but with many limitations that should be explored in further research.

The 51-60 cm H2O Artificial Urinary Sphincter Pressure Regulating Balloon: Indications and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the role and long-term outcomes of using the 51-60cm H2O pressure regulating balloon (PRB) in male patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). METHODS: From 2005-2021, 90 patients with a variety of urethral risk factors underwent AUS placement with use of the low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB to treat stress incontinence. Patient demographics, indication for use of the 51-60 cm H2O PRB, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were examined and Pearson's chi squared test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to identify associations with future revisions, erosion, and mechanical failure. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included in the study. After median follow-up of 46.6months (range: 6-146months), 4 (4.44%) patients developed an erosion-related complication that required device removal, 4 developed an infection, and 3 underwent surgery for pump relocation. One patient had a reported mechanical failure of unknown source. Thirty patients underwent revision surgery to reduce incontinence. Of the 4 patients with erosion, 1 was due to iatrogenic catheterization. The remaining 3 had numerous urethral risk factors. Univariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of cuff erosion, infection, and revision in patients with a 51-60 cm H2O PRB. No significant associations were found including prior pelvic radiation, age at AUS placement, presence of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), prior AUS erosion, or previous urethroplasty. CONCLUSION: The low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB can be used in high-risk male patients with urinary incontinence with low rates of complications including erosion, infection, and mechanical failure. While patients may choose to undergo future revisional surgery to improve continence, the 51-60 cm H2O PRB should be considered as the initial PRB in patients with urethral risk factors.

An evaluation of three validated comorbidity indices to predict short-term postoperative outcomes after prosthetic urologic surgery.

PURPOSE: Commonly used comorbidity indices include the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Elixhauser/Van Walraven Index (VWI), and modified frailty index (mFI). This study evaluates whether these indices predict postoperative readmissions and complications after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement. METHODS: We identified adult males who underwent IPP or AUS placement using the State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases for Florida (2010-2015) and California (2010-2011). CCI, VWI, and mFI scores were calculated for each patient. We extracted 30-day emergency department services, 30-day readmissions, 90-day device complications (e.g., removal, replacement, or infection), and 90-day postoperative complications (excluding device complications). Receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed and areas under the curve (AUC) were compared between the indices using the VWI as the reference model. We considered an AUC < 0.7 to represent poor predictive power. RESULTS: We identified 4242 IPP and 1190 AUS patients. All three indices had AUCs and 95% confidence intervals less than 0.70 for all outcomes following IPP and AUS placement making these indices poor predictors for postoperative outcomes. There were no significant differences in predicting 90-day postoperative complications between the VWI (AUC = 0.59, 95% CI [0.54-0.63]), CCI (AUC = 0.59, 95% CI [0.54-0.63], p = 0.99), and mFI (AUC = 0.60, 95% CI [0.55-0.66], p = 0.53) for IPPs and VWI (AUC = 0.54, 95% CI [0.47-0.61]), CCI (AUC = 0.50, 95% CI [0.43-0.57], p = 0.30), and mFI (AUC = 0.52, 95% CI [0.43-0.60], p = 0.56) for AUS placements. CONCLUSION: All three comorbidity indices were poor predictors of readmissions and complications following urologic prosthetic surgeries. A better comorbidity index is needed for risk-stratification of patients undergoing these surgeries.

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.

Perspective: Residual penile curvature correction during penile prosthesis implantation by plication in Peyronie's patients.

For patients with large calcified tunical plaque or severe corporal fibrosis which are likely to have a pronounced and persistent residual curvature which may not be correct by penile prosthesis implantation alone, other adjunctive manoeuvres such as penile plication and/or plaque incision with grafting may be necessary. The sequence between penile plication and penile prosthesis implantation is largely dependent on several factors such as the severity of penile curvature, the presence of (calcified) tunical plaque(s) and whether aggressive corporal dilation and subsequent penile remodelling with an inflated implant can straighten any residual penis curvature. The advantages of pre-placement of penile plication sutures prior to penile prosthesis implantation are the avoidance of inadvertent damage to the underlying penile prosthesis implant, the ability to adjust the tension on the rows of the plication sutures based on residual curvature with the device fully inflated, and potentially minimising the duration of surgery. In contrast, penile prosthesis implantation followed by penile plication to correct residual curvature, this sequence of surgery may negate the need for penile plications if penile remodelling is effective, or the residual curvature is less than 15 degrees where postoperative manual remodelling may continue to improve the penile cosmesis. When performed by expert surgeons and adhering to safe surgical principles, there is no doubt that patients will be satisfied with the outcomes and highly appreciative of the final penile cosmesis and the ensuing optimal outcomes.

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.

Penile implants in low flow priapism.

Priapism is a persistent or prolonged erection, in the absence of sexual stimulation, that fails to subside. Prolonged ischaemic or low flow priapism is defined as a full or partial erection persisting for more than 4 h and unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation, characterised by little or no cavernous blood flow. Low flow priapism leads to progressive corporal fibrosis, which could, in turn, lead to long-lasting erectile dysfunction if left untreated. Penile prosthesis implantation is recognised as a management option in refractory and delayed low flow priapism for restoring erectile function with high patient satisfaction rates. However, the ensuing corporal fibrotic scarring poses a surgical challenge to clinicians, given the higher complication rates in this patient subset. Postoperative patient satisfaction has been closely linked to preoperative expectations and perceived loss of penile length. Therefore, thorough patient counselling concerning the risk and benefits of penile implants should be a priority for all clinicians. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus on the ideal prosthesis choice and procedural timing in refractory low flow priapism. In this review, we will examine the existing literature on penile implants in patients with priapism and discuss the options for managing complications associated with penile prosthesis surgery.

A narrative review on malleable and inflatable penile implants: choosing the right implant for the right patient.

A penile prosthesis/implant is an excellent option for men with erectile dysfunction refractory to medical treatment or with contraindications to medical management. In this narrative review, we discuss the different types of penile prostheses and the considerations for patient and device selection to maximize satisfaction. There are three main prosthesis types to choose from: three-piece inflatable devices, two-piece inflatable devices, and malleable/semirigid devices. The three-piece devices are the gold standard in advanced economy countries but require reservoir placement and manual dexterity, which can be limiting to some patients. The two-piece inflatable devices are a good option for patients who have standard-sized penises, lack significant penile pathology, have limited dexterity issues, or should avoid reservoir placement due to potential complications. The malleable devices are popular in countries where insurance coverage is limited but are increasingly used in advanced economy countries for length conservation in specific patient populations. Finally, not every patient needs an implant, and assessing partner sexual function is an important consideration for patient-partner satisfaction. Surgeons need to be familiar with the strengths and limitations of each device and the patient characteristics that will yield the best outcome from penile prosthesis surgery.

Suprapubic Lipectomy and Placement of a Three-piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Penile length loss is often observed in patients with erectile dysfunction and obesity. In patients with a prominent infrapubic fat pad, the excess fat can further reduce perceived penile length.1 As others have reported, concurrent suprapubic lipectomy and placement of a penile implant has been shown to be an effective way of exposing phallic length in this challenging patient population.2,3 OBJECTIVE: In this video, we present surgical technique and initial outcomes of concurrent suprapubic lipectomy and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement in patients that have erectile dysfunction and lipodystrophy of the mons pubis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed an institutional review board-approved prosthetic database of male patients that underwent placement of a 3-piece IPP and concurrent suprapubic lipectomy from 2020 to 2023. Intraoperative complications and postoperative outcomes were collated and analyzed. To perform this operation, an elliptical incision is made around the suprapubic fat pad that extends to the base of the penis inferiorly. Laterally the incision is carried just medial to the inferior margin of the iliac crest. Sharp dissection and electrocautery are used to dissect the fat pad free. A layer of areolar tissue is preserved above the layer of the fascia to prevent seroma formation. For larger blood vessels, vascular clips are used to ensure adequate hemostasis. After removal of the fat pad, placement of the penile prosthesis can proceed as one would through an infrapubic approach. After the device is placed, the tissue flaps based on the external pudendal vessels are inspected for adequate vascularity. Penetrating towel clamps are used to approximate the skin edges from lateral to medial so that the midline closure can be approximated accurately. 0-PDS is used to anchor the flap superiorly into the lower edge of the abdominal fold. The incision is then closed in multiple layers of absorbable suture from lateral to medial. A skin stapler or suture is then used to approximate the skin and the penis is wrapped with a compressive dressing. RESULTS: Nine patients underwent the combined surgery. There were no intraoperative complications. In follow-up, 1 patient developed an infection-related complication that required device removal and immediate replacement. The remaining 8 did well postoperatively with improved dorsal phallic length with no infection or device-related complications. CONCLUSION: Concurrent suprapubic lipectomy and placement of a 3-piece IPP is a safe and reproducible technique for the treatment of suprapubic lipodystrophy, buried penis, and refractory ED.

Subcoronal Incision for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Does Not Risk Glans Necrosis.

PURPOSE: Glans vascular compromise had previously been considered a rare but devastating complication of the subcoronal incision for inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Here, we describe the largest series of subcoronal implants to date to assess contemporary complication rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of subcoronal prosthesis placements by a single surgeon from Seoul, South Korea, was performed. Patients were randomly assigned either Coloplast Titan or AMS 700 device per institutional practice. RESULTS: A total of 898 patients who underwent subcoronal implants from May 2015 to March 2022 were analyzed. Median follow-up was 41 months (IQR 40). Preoperative patient comorbidities included diabetes (36.6%) and Peyronie's disease (4%). The most common complication was transient distal penile edema (74.7%). Transient incisional paresthesia (20.6%) was more common in patients with diabetes (31.9% vs 13.9%, P < .01). Five cases (0.5%) of distal penile skin necrosis were reported in patients who had previously been circumcised. Of these, 3 were managed successfully with wet-to-dry dressing, 1 required skin grafting, and 1 required device explant. Device infection without incisional compromise occurred in 2 cases (0.2%). There were no instances of glans necrosis or ischemia observed in this cohort. Of the first-time implants (817, 90.9%), most (62.3%) were successfully completed under local anesthetic alone, with the remainder of surgeries completed with the addition of adjunctive conscious sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Subcoronal incision for first-time or revision penile implant surgery is not a risk factor for glans ischemia or necrosis and can be safely completed under local anesthetic with or without conscious sedation.