Satisfaction assessment study in patients (and their partners) with/without Peyronie's disease and penile prosthesis implantation.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Among the many treatments for erectile dysfunction, implantation of a penile prosthesis has been associated with high patient satisfaction rates. However, patients with coexistent Peyronie's disease (PD) and refractory erectile dysfunction and/or severe deformities may show different results. The aim of our study was to assess and to compare the level of satisfaction, with an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), in men with/without coexistent PD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey study based on a five-item satisfaction questionnaire was submitted to all those live patients implanted in the period 1992-2022 at our center (n=570) and their partners. Ninety-two percent of implants were inflatable devices. Surgeries were mainly performed by two surgeons. The main outcome measure used was the level of patient and partner satisfaction with sexual intercourse after IPP. RESULTS: Of the 570 eligible patients, 479 (84%) completed the survey (393 Non-PD: GROUP 1; 70 non-complex PD-Group 2; 16 complex PD). Eighty-six per cent of patients in Group 1 reported satisfactory sexual intercourse (very or moderately satisfied). Non-complex PD implanted patients (Group 2) reported a global 81% satisfactory sexual intercourse (very or moderately satisfied) (p>0.05). However, when we evaluated the PD subgroup of patients with severe PD who require incision/excision/grafting at the time of implant (Group 3: n=20), only 61% reported satisfactory sexual intercourse (p<0.01) with predominance of moderately satisfied patients over very satisfied: 78% vs. 22%). Additionally, 84% (Group 1), 80% (Group 2) and 54% (Group 3) of partners reported satisfactory intercourses, respectively (p<0.01). Overall, 84% of Group 1 implants and 79% of Group 2 reported that they would undergo the procedure again if the IPP failed (p>0.05; ns). Only 50% of Group 3 patients would do it again. With regard to cosmetic aspects, 48% of the Group 3 implant reported penile shortness or soft glans as the main causes of their dissatisfaction. Only 2.4% of total PP patients expressed difficulty in manipulating the device. CONCLUSION: The presence of PD alone may not impact PP patient and partner satisfaction, but patients with more severe baseline deformity who require incision/grafting may be less satisfied with outcomes including penile length and glans sensation.

Implantable Penile Prosthesis for Erectile Dysfunction: Insurance Coverage in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: A manufacturer's benefit verification database was evaluated to ascertain United States health plan insurance coverage for implantable penile prostheses for erectile dysfunction. METHODS: All-payer and employer-sponsored health plan benefit verification databases were queried to determine implantable penile prosthesis approval status. For the all-payer analysis, data by payer were available and presented for 2019-2021 to assess approval status varied by payer and over time. For the employer-sponsored health plan analysis, data by payer were available from 2018-2021. RESULTS: Benefit verification records for the all-payer database were available for 3,167 patients in 2019, 3,016 in 2020, and 2,837 in 2021. Insurance type was preferred provider organization (27.5%), Medicare Advantage (26.9%), Medicare (15.9%), or point-of-service (10.5%). Most patients were approved or verified for implantable penile prosthesis coverage (79.4% in 2019, 79.6% in 2020, and 78.4% in 2021). Coverage was most extensive for government-based insurance (Medicare 98.7%, Medicare Advantage 97.1%, Tricare 100%, and Veterans Affairs 80.0%) but was also favorable for commercial insurance (75.0%). The most common reason for lack of coverage was employer exclusion; the proportion of patients with no coverage due to exclusion increased from 13.5% in 2019 to 17.5% in 2021. Analyses of the employer-sponsored health plan database (n=3,083 patients) showed that 63.1% of patients were approved or verified for coverage and 34.2% did not have coverage due to health plan exclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 80% of patients had implantable penile prosthesis coverage. Employer exclusion was the most common reason for lagging coverage; rates of employer exclusion increased 29.3% from 2019-2021.

Functional outcomes after prostate cancer treatment: A comparison between single and multiple modalities.

Prostate cancer is a widely common and treatable disease, and functional outcomes can greatly affect survivor quality of life. A retrospective review of the SEER-Medicare database was performed to identify patients who underwent prostate cancer treatment between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2013 and review the rates of diagnosis and treatment of common functional side effects of surgery, radiation, or a combination of the 2 and perform a comparison of the outcomes. A total of 67,527 patients were included in the analysis. Radiation therapy (RT)-only compared to radical prostatectomy (RP)-only had lower rates of diagnosis of erectile dysfunction (30.4%, 95% CI 29.9%-30.9% vs. 56.1%, 95% CI 55.1%-57.04%, P < 0.0001), UI (29.7%, 95% CI 29.0%-30.3% vs. 44.5%, 95% CI 43.3%-45.6%, P < 0.0001), but higher rates of urethral stricture disease (8.44%, 95% CI 8.1%-8.8% vs. 5.35%, 95% CI 4.9%-5.9%, P < 0.0001), cystitis (33.1% 95% CI 32.4%-33.7% vs. 20.3%, 95% CI 19.2%-21.4%, P < 0.0001), and proctitis (14.7%, 95% CI 14.3%-15.1& vs. 2.75%, 95% CI 2.3%-3.3%, P < 0.0001). Compared to either single modality, the RP-then-RT group had higher incontinence medication use (12.0% 95% CI 10.8%-13.2% vs. 9.8%, 95% CI 9.5%-10.1% for RT-only and 8.3%, 95% CI 7.8%-8.8% for RP-only, P < 0.0001), overall incontinence therapy (18.5%, 95%CI 17.1%-20.0% vs. 10.2%, 95%CI 9.9%-10.5% for RT-only and 14.9%, 95% CI 14.3%-15.5% for RP-only, P < 0.0001), and stricture therapy (12.7%, 95% CI 11.5%-13.9% vs. 8.2%, 95% CI 8.0%-8.5% for RT-only and 9.1% 95% CI 8.6%-9.6% for RP-only, P < 0.0001). The RT-then-RP group had higher rates of stricture (25.4% compared to 8.2% for RT-only, 9.1% for RP-only, and 12.7% for RP-then-RT) and fistula (1.0% compared to 0.07% for RT-only, 0.18% for RP-only, and 0.092% for RP-then-RT) treatment than all the other groups. Multimodality therapy is generally associated with higher treatments rates for conditions such as erectile dysfunction , incontinence, urethral stricture disease , irritative cystitis and proctitis in patients older than 65. Radiation therapy followed by prostatectomy is associated with significantly worse functional outcomes. Patients undergoing or anticipating undergoing multimodality therapy for prostate cancer should be counseled regarding the possibility of increased risk of declining functional outcomes.

Relationships between erectile dysfunction, prostate cancer treatment type and inflatable penile prosthesis implantation.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) and the utilization of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) among prostate cancer patients are understudied. The aim of the study was to examine the relationships between ED, prostate cancer treatment type and IPP implantation in a national cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified a retrospective cohort of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare patients diagnosed with locoregional prostate cancer between 2006 and 2011 and treated with surgery or radiation. Chi-square tests were used to detect significant differences in ED rates as well as use of IPP among the subset with ED. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with the use of IPP. RESULTS: Among 31,233 patients in our cohort, 10,334 (33.1%) received prostatectomy and 20,899 (66.9%) received radiation. ED within 5 years was significantly more common in the prostatectomy group relative to those the radiation group (65.3% vs. 33.8%, p<0.001). In the subset of 13,812 patients with ED, the radiation group had greater median time to ED diagnosis compared to the prostatectomy group (346 vs. 133 days, p<0.001). IPP implantation was more frequent for prostatectomy patients than for radiation patients (3.6% vs. 1.4%, p<0.001). Cancer treatment type, race, and marital status were significantly associated with IPP utilization. CONCLUSIONS: ED is highly prevalent among prostate cancer patients, and IPP implantation is be underutilized. ED rates, time to ED diagnosis and utilization of IPP differed significantly by prostate cancer treatment type.

Grafting Area Reduction in Peyronie's Disease Surgery: Comparative Assessment Between Double Y Vs iGrafter APP Using 3D-Printed Penile Models.

BACKGROUND: The use of plaque incision and graft techniques (PIG) for the treatment of severe Peyronie's disease (PD), may lead to erectile dysfunction (ED); graft size is 1 of the contributing factors for post-PIG ED. Recently the iGrafter software APP was introduced using a mathematical algorithm to distribute the incisions along the penile length resulting in a smaller grafting area. AIM: Compare 2 PIG techniques, the Double-Y(DY) and iGrafter, in 3 main aspects: (i) Total grafting area; (ii) The variation in calculating the grafting to be used; (iii) time to perform the PIG. METHODS: Six urologists with expertise in sexual medicine performed both techniques twice using four 3-D validated training models for PD with a standard 60° uniplanar dorsal curvature. OUTCOMES: The graft areas and operative partial and total time for each step of the operation were recorded for each procedure. Unpaired t-test and the coefficient of variation for graft area across surgeons was calculated comparing both techniques. RESULTS: For all surgeons, the use of iGrafter resulted in 2 grafts, for the DY technique in 1 graft. Overall, TT for the iGrafter was significantly longer than for DY technique (49.4 ± 11 vs 40.7 ± 5.7 minute; P = .02), The iGrafter grafting area was significantly smaller (11.6 ± 1.2 vs 23.3 ± 5.4 cm2; P: .01), representing a 50.2% area reduction when compared to the DY. The variation of graft area, using the iGrafter also yielded a more consistent graft across all surgeons (CV = 10.56% vs 23.28%). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The iGrafter, when compared to DY technique, reduced the graft area by 50%, which potentially means less erectile dysfunction. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Our study eliminates anatomical variations found in a real clinical case making it possible to compare surgical techniques with the same penile anatomy. However, the 3D-printed model cannot replicate the living human tissue property preventing a simulation close to actual surgery. CONCLUSION: The use of the iGrafter software for PIG surgery has shown to be a promising technique for severe PD management resulting in smaller graft size (about 50% smaller when compared to the DY), although it might be more time-consuming. Tourchi A, Nascimento B, de Freita Miranda A, et al. Grafting Area Reduction in Peyronie's Disease Surgery: Comparative Assessment Between Double Y Vs iGrafter APP Using 3D-Printed Penile Models. J Sex Med 2022;19:669-675.

Global Trends in Prevalence, Treatments, and Costs of Penile Prosthesis for Erectile Dysfunction in Men.

CONTEXT: Penile prosthesis is a durable and effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). Even as other treatment options for ED have been brought to market, penile prosthetic surgery remains a mainstay for urologists treating ED. No systematic study has yet summarized the global trends in penile prosthetic surgery. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies of trends in penile prosthetic surgery to determine global movements in implantation rates, malleable versus inflatable prosthetic surgery, inpatient versus outpatient implantation surgery, proportion of men with ED undergoing penile prosthetic surgery, and prosthetic cost. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for studies assessing trends in penile prosthetic surgeries and costs associated with penile prosthetic device and inclusive surgical costs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-seven studies were identified during the systematic review, comprising 447,204 penile prosthetic surgeries reported from 1988 to 2019. A trend analysis demonstrates that rates of penile prosthetic surgery declined dramatically in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but have demonstrated modest growth since the mid-2000s. Outpatient inflatable penile prosthetic surgery has strongly trended upward. Costs of penile prosthetic device have matched the rate of inflation, but inclusive surgical cost has radically outpaced inflation. Growth has mainly been seen in the USA, with a more modest global growth. CONCLUSIONS: Penile prosthesis remains a viable option for the treatment of ED. Trends such as outpatient surgery and inflatable penile prosthesis placement may be driving the recent steady growth of penile prosthetic surgeries, but surging inclusive surgical cost may present a barrier for some patients without insurance coverage. PATIENT SUMMARY: Penile prostheses continue to be an important treatment for erectile dysfunction. While the volume of penile prosthetic surgeries dropped when phosphidiesterase-5 inhibitors became available, prosthetic surgery is becoming more patient centric, as seen by increases in inflatable prosthetic placement and outpatient surgery.

Cost of Lost Productivity Due to Erectile Dysfunction and Impact of Employer Benefit Exclusion of Penile Prosthesis Implantation Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the cost of lost productivity due to erectile dysfunction (ED) and employer benefit exclusion of penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) among men with employer-sponsored health insurance. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed using administrative claims data, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and published literature. The economic impact of ED productivity loss and PPi benefit exclusion was reported in2019USD. RESULTS: Men with ED had an additional 282.7 hours/ year of work impairment compared to men without ED, resulting in annual incremental costs of $7270. US employers excluding PPi benefits could lose $9.3billion/year of work due to additional work impairment from ED. CONCLUSIONS: Productivity loss due to ED and PPI benefit exclusion have considerable economic impacts on men with ED and their employers. continuous advocacy for benefit exclusion removal is needed to ensure appropriate patient access.

Radiographic Assessment of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Location Variability in Contemporary Practice.

BACKGROUND: Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs are typically placed into the Space of Retzius (SOR) or alternative locations including the High Submuscular (HSM) space via transinguinal (TI) or counter incision (CI) techniques. A cadaver study showed variability in reservoir location after TI-HSM placement. AIM: To evaluate reservoir location using cross-sectional imaging following IPP insertion. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database and identified men who underwent virgin penoscrotal IPP insertion between 2007 and 2019. We then identified those men who subsequently underwent cross-sectional imaging prior to October 2019. Radiologists evaluated cross-sectional imaging in a blinded manner and categorized reservoir locations as follows: 1) submuscular; 2) posterior to the external oblique fascia and lateral to the rectus abdominis musculature; 3) preperitoneal; 4) retroperitoneal; 5) intraperitoneal; 6) inguinal canal; 7) subcutaneous. Patients were stratified by reservoir placement technique, transinguinal space of Retzius (TI-SOR), transinguinal high submuscular (TI-HSM), or counterincision high submuscular (CI-HSM). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were reviewed and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests. OUTCOMES: Variability exists in the TI placement of SOR and HSM reservoirs, CI-HSM reservoirs were associated with a low level of variability. RESULTS: Among 561 men who underwent virgin IPP insertion during the 12-year study period, 114 had postoperative cross-sectional imaging (29 TI-SOR, 80 TI-HSM, and 5 CI-HSM). Among the 114 patients imaged, TI-HSM reservoirs were more likely than TI-SOR to be located anterior to the transversalis fascia (48 vs 14%, P < .01) and were less likely to be located in the preperitoneal space (18 vs 62%, P < .01). Rates of intraperitoneal reservoir location were similar between the TI-HSM and TI-SOR groups (5 vs 7%, P = .66). Among imaged CI-HSM reservoirs, 4 (80%) were anterior to the transversalis fascia and 1 (20%) was within the inguinal canal. Among all 536 transinguinal cases (131 TI-SOR and 405 TI-HSM), rates of reservoir-related complications requiring operative intervention were similar between groups (5 vs 2%, P = .24). No complications were noted among the 25 patients in the CI-HSM cohort. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The level of variability seen in this study did not seem to impact patient safety, complications were rare in all cohorts. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study is the first and largest of its kind in evaluating reservoir positioning in live patients with long-term follow-up. This study is limited in its retrospective and nonrandomized nature. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variability with both TI-HSM and TI-SOR techniques, reservoir related complications remain rare. Kavoussi M, Cook G, Nordeck S, et al. Radiographic Assessment of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Location Variability in Contemporary Practice. J Sex Med 2021;18:2039-2044.

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.

The Association Between Hemoglobin A1c Levels and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Infection: Analysis of US Insurance Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: The association between elevated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and the risk of postoperative infection after penile prosthesis surgery remains controversial. AIM: To examine the association between HbA1c levels and penile implant infections in men undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery for erectile dysfunction using a large insurance claims database. METHODS: This was a retrospective review using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Male subjects 18 years and older with available laboratory data undergoing IPP insertion between 2003 and 2018 were included. Administrative diagnosis and procedural codes were used to assess subsequent penile implant revision surgery status for either infectious or noninfectious causes. Associated conditions were controlled for such as smoking status, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity status, and Peyronie's disease. OUTCOMES: The main outcomes were risk of revision for infection and time to revision. RESULTS: A total of 2,363 individuals underwent initial IPP insertion and had available HbA1c data with a mean HbA1c of 6.9%. The overall IPP infection revision rate was 3.9% and the highest rate of 12.1% was seen in the highest HbA1c group (>10%). After adjusting for demographic and health factors, a higher HbA1c level was associated with a higher risk of revision for infection, with every 1 point increase in HbA1c conferring an increased risk of infection requiring revision by 29% (95% CI 17-42%). When infections did occur, they happened sooner in men with HbA1c > 10.0% with an average of 1.3 months vs 3.5 months in the HbA1c < 6.0% group. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings provide insight into the potential relationship between HbA1c levels and postoperative risk of infection after penile prosthesis surgery and may aid in clinical decision-making. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Strengths include the large sample size, length of data coverage, and real-world analysis of surgeries done across the United States. Limitations include the reliance on insurance claims data, the retrospective study design, and lack of additional relevant clinical variables that may impact infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: While the overall risk of penile prosthesis infection remains modest, the current report notes an increased risk of infection for diabetic men with poor glycemic control. Chen T, Li S, Eisenberg ML. The Association Between Hemoglobin A1c Levels and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Infection: Analysis of US Insurance Claims Data. J Sex Med 2021;18:1104-1109.

Penile Implant Surgery Satisfaction Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Several studies reported high satisfaction rates (> 90%) for patients and their partners after penile prosthesis (PP) implantation. AIM: To describe and critically discuss the current evidence regarding the assessment of patient and partner satisfaction after penile implant surgery. METHODS: A critical narrative review of the studies investigating the patient and partner satisfaction after PP implantation was designed. Papers in English-language published until January 2021 were included. OUTCOMES: The main outcome investigated was patient and partner satisfaction after penile implant surgery. RESULTS: The International Index of Erectile Function , the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction , the Treatment Satisfaction Scale , and the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis are the best-known validated tools used to assess satisfaction after PP implantation. Except for Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis , they were not validated in patients undergoing penile implant surgery. The lack of an "ad hoc" tool has led to the widespread of nonvalidated questionnaires. Several tools can be useful in the preimplantation counseling, such as the mnemonic Compulsive/obsessive, Unrealistic, Revision, Surgeon Shopping, Entitled, Denial, and Psychiatric , the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Brief Sexual Symptom Checklist for Men , the Attitude towards Penile Implant , and the Attitude Attributed to the Partner towards Penile Implant . CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Improvement of knowledge regarding the available tools to evaluate the satisfaction after penile implant surgery. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Comprehensive and thorough review of all the main validated questionnaires available to assess satisfaction in patients with PP. Lack of a systematic approach and quantitative data analysis. CONCLUSION: Despite the high satisfaction rate reported in the literature, most of the studies used suboptimal or non-validated questionnaires to assess patients undergoing penile implant surgery. Future research is needed to develop and validate a specific, complete and easy-to-use questionnaire. Manfredi C, Fortier É, Faix A, et al. Penile Implant Surgery Satisfaction Assessment. J Sex Med 2021;18:868-874.

An assessment of current penile prosthesis reimbursement guidelines for insurance plans nationwide.

A lack of uniformity exists for insurance payer coverage for all categories of penile prostheses (PP). We sought to determine common insurance coverage criteria and barriers to implantation across common insurance plans from healthcare referral regions (HRR) nationwide. Coverage criteria and stipulations were reviewed regarding erectile dysfunction (ED) etiology, ED duration, contributing comorbid conditions, medications, drug use, diagnostic tests, use of procedures and prior interventions. Seventy of 100 plans included coverage criteria. 36.1% provided coverage only in cases of gender dysphoria. 27.7% required documentation of trial, contraindication or intolerance to pharmacologic therapy, with varying descriptors of what this entailed. 13.8% required at least consideration of prior pharmacologic therapy. 4.2% required trial or contraindication to classic second-line therapies. 25.0% stated that ED must be organic. Psychogenic ED was covered by 12.5% of plans. Eleven plans required at least 6 or 12 months of symptoms. Laboratory evaluation to rule out hypogonadism or hyperprolactinemia was required by five plans. Insurance coverage criteria for PP placement were highly variable by state and plan. Coverage is provided for PP implantation in most cases for ED of organic etiology following failure of pharmacologic therapy when contributing comorbidities are optimally managed.

Challenging Ethical Scenarios in the Surgical Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: A Survey of High-Volume Penile Prosthesis Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how surgeons approach ethically challenging scenarios that arise in penile prosthesis surgery and identify patient-related factors that impact their approach. METHODS: A survey was distributed to the Society for Urologic Prosthetic Surgeons membership consisting of 6 ethically challenging scenarios: an HIV+ patient, a patient with cognitive disability, a registered sex offender, a nonverbal patient, a litigious patient, and an uncontrolled diabetic patient whose insurance will lapse soon. Additional clinical information was provided to assess how the likelihood to offer surgery might change. The primary outcome was the likelihood of offering surgery in each scenario. RESULTS: The response rate was 15.6% (n = 29). When compared to the baseline patient, respondents had a lower likelihood of offering surgery in all scenarios except the HIV+ patient, with the lowest likelihood of offering surgery to a sex offender (P < .01). Within each scenario, factors associated with an increased odds of offering surgery included knowledge that a patient with Down Syndrome is high functioning (odds ratio [OR] 5.0, confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-17.8), that a prior sex offender is currently married (OR 16.5, CI:3.5-99.8), that a litigious patient sued a surgeon for a retained sponge (OR 6.3, CI:1.7-24.3), and that a nonverbal patient had expressed prior interest in penile prosthesis surgery (OR 4.5, CI: 1.3-16.2). CONCLUSION: Ethical principles, including respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice, are appropriately applied by urological prosthetic surgeons when ethical challenges arise. While the likelihood of offering penile prosthesis surgery is decreased with most ethical dilemmas, specific clinical factors often augment decision-making.

Rural Medicare patients less likely to undergo penile prosthesis implantation following radical cystectomy.

INTRODUCTION Erectile dysfunction is common after radical cystectomy; however, research on sexual dysfunction after this procedure is relatively scarce. Our goal was to evaluate the incidence of penile prosthesis implantation after radical cystectomy, with a focus on rural/urban disparity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the SEER-Medicare database to identify patients with bladder cancer diagnosed between 1991-2009 who had a radical cystectomy (ICD-9 codes 57.7, 57.71, 57.79). The outcome was placement of a penile implant (ICD-9 codes 64.95 and 64.97). Covariates extracted included rural county status, age, race, ethnicity, marital status, geographic region, socioeconomic status, Charlson comorbidity, pathologic cancer stage, and type of urinary diversion. RESULTS: A total of 95 penile implants were performed in the 11,477 cystectomy patients (0.83%). Patients who had a penile implant were mostly from urban counties (85.1%) and in the Western region of the United States (83.9%). After controlling for covariates, rural patients who underwent an ileal conduit for urinary diversion were less likely to have a penile prosthesis procedure after radical cystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Penile prosthetic procedures are uncommon in bladder cancer patients who have undergone radical cystectomy; therefore, sexual health should be considered and discussed with patients after radical cystectomy.

Minimizing Penile Prosthesis Implant Infection: What Can We Learn From Orthopedic Surgery?

The implantation of penile protheses for the surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction has risen in popularity over the past several decades. Considerable advances have been made in surgical protocol and device design, specifically targeting infection prevention. Despite these efforts, device infection remains a critical problem, which causes significant physical and emotional burden to the patient. The aim of this review is to broaden the discussion of best practices by not only examining practices in urology, but additionally delving into the field of orthopedic surgery to identify techniques and approaches that may be applied to penile prothesis surgery.

Penile Prosthesis Implantation and Timing Disparities After Radical Prostatectomy: Results From a Statewide Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) after radical prostatectomy (RP) improve with conservative therapy but some do not; penile prosthesis implantation rates have been sparsely reported, and have used nonrepresentative data sets. AIM: To characterize rates and timing of penile prosthesis implantation after RP and to identify predictors of implantation using a more representative data set. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery databases for Florida from 2006 to 2015 were used. Patients undergoing RP (2006-2012) were tracked longitudinally for penile prosthesis implantation. Patient and clinical data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was risk-adjusted predictors of prosthesis implantation, and the secondary outcome was predictors of the highest quartile of time between RP and penile prosthesis. RESULTS: Of 29,288 men who had RP, 1,449 (4.9%) patients underwent subsequent prosthesis. The mean time from RP to prosthesis was 2.6 years (median: 2.1; interquartile range [IQR]: 1.2-3.5). Adjusted predictors of prosthesis implantation included open RP (odds ratio [OR]: 1.5, P < .01), African American race (OR: 1.7, P < .01) or Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 3.2, P < .01), and Medicare (OR: 1.4, P < .01) insurance. Oler patients (age >70 years; OR: 0.7, P < .01) and those from the highest income quartile relative to the lowest (OR: 0.8, P < .05) were less likely to be implanted. Adjusted predictors of longer RP-to-implantation time (highest quartile: median: 4.7 years; IQR: 3.9-6.0 years) included open RP (OR: 1.78, P < .01), laparoscopic RP (OR: 4.67, P < .01), Medicaid (OR: 3.03, P < .05), private insurance (OR: 2.57, P < .01), and being in the highest income quartile (OR: 2.52, P < .01). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest ED treatment healthcare disparities meriting further investigation; upfront counseling on all ED treatment modalities and close monitoring for conservative treatment failure may reduce lost quality of life years. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its use of administrative data, which relies on accurate coding and lacks data on ED questionnaires/prior treatments, patient-level cost, and oncologic outcomes. Quartile-based analysis of income and time between RP and prosthesis limits the conclusions that can be drawn. CONCLUSION: Less than 5% of post-RP patients undergo penile prosthesis implantation, with open RP, Medicare, African American race, and Hispanic ethnicity predicting post-RP implantation; living in the wealthiest residential areas predicts lower likelihood of implantation compared to the least wealthy areas. Patients with the longest time between RP and prosthesis are more likely to live in the wealthiest areas or have undergone open/laparoscopic RP relative to robotic RP. Bajic P, Patel PM, Nelson MH, et al. Penile Prosthesis Implantation and Timing Disparities After Radical Prostatectomy: Results From a Statewide Claims Database. J Sex Med 2020;17:1175-1181.

Regional Variation in Penile Prosthesis Utilization among Medicare Patients with Erectile Dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize penile prosthesis surgery utilization and assess for regional differences in the use of this procedure across the United States. MATERIALS & METHODS: We examined penile prosthesis surgeries (inflatable and semirigid implants) in Medicare beneficiaries with erectile dysfunction (ED) for the years 2006 through 2014. Adjusted utilization rates were calculated per 1000 beneficiaries accounting for age and race. Utilization rates were examined nationally and by hospital referral region (HRR). RESULTS: The national adjusted rate of penile prosthesis surgery declined from 5.41 per 1000 beneficiaries in 2006 to 3.74 per 1000 beneficiaries in 2014. The number of beneficiaries diagnosed with ED outpaced the number of patients undergoing surgery. Regional variation was observed; a 12-fold difference in 2014 (1.9/1000 in Norfolk, VA to 24.2/1000 in Miami, FL). Adjustment of 2014 data by urology provider density reduced variation between HRRs, and as a result a 3.5-fold difference was observed. Over 60% of HRRs performed 0 to <11 surgeries. CONCLUSION: The rate of penile prosthesis surgery is declining amongst Medicare beneficiaries with ED. Significant regional variation exists in the utilization of penile prosthesis surgery. This variation may be explained by a series of urologist and patient-specific factors, including provider density. Penile prosthesis surgery in Medicare beneficiaries is likely highly dependent on where these patients seek care.

Future considerations in prosthetic urology.

Since their popularization, genitourinary prosthetics have remained a gold-standard therapy for the treatment of erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence and in cases of testicular loss or dysfunction. They have also represented an area of significant innovation, which has contributed to excellent long-term outcomes. Given this history, the objective of the current review was to provide a 5-10-year outlook on anticipated trends and developments in the field of genitourinary prosthetics. To accomplish this objective, a PubMed and patent search was performed of topics relating to penile and testicular prostheses and urinary sphincters. In regard to penile prostheses, findings demonstrated several new concepts including temperature-sensitive alloys, automated pumps, devices designed specifically for neophalluses, and improved malleable designs. With artificial urinary sphincters, new concepts include the ability to add or remove fluid from an existing system, two-piece systems, and new mechanisms to occlude the urethra. For testicular prosthetics, future implementations may not only better replicate the feel of a biological testicle but also add endocrinological functions. Beyond device innovation, the future of prosthetics is also one of expanding geographic boundaries, which necessitates variable cost modeling and regulatory considerations. Surgical trends are also changing, with a greater emphasis on nonnarcotic, postoperative pain control, outpatient surgeries, and adjunctive techniques to lengthen the penis and address concomitant stress incontinence, among others. Concomitant with device and surgical changes, future considerations also include a greater need for education and training, particularly given the rapid expansion of sexual medicine into developing nations.

A Review of Economic Evaluations of Erectile Dysfunction Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common and costly urologic condition with increasing prevalence as men age. Cost-effectiveness of ED therapies and whether cost-effectiveness varies for different populations of men remains underexplored. AIM: To review and summarize available published data on the economic evaluation of ED therapies and to identify gaps in the literature that still need to be addressed. METHODS: All relevant peer-reviewed publications and conference abstracts were reviewed and incorporated. RESULTS: There are a number of medical and surgical treatment options available for ED. The economic evaluation of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, particularly sildenafil, has been well described. However, minimal research has been conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of intracavernosal injections, intraurethral suppositories, penile prosthesis surgery, vacuum erection devices, and other emerging therapies in men with different causes of ED. CONCLUSION: Available economic evaluations of ED therapies are dated, do not reflect present-day physician, pharmaceutical, and device costs, fail to account for patient comorbidities, and may not be generalizable to today's ED patients. Substantial research is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ED treatments across different patient populations, countries, and reimbursement systems. Rezaee ME, Ward CE, Brandes ER, et al. A Review of Economic Evaluations of Erectile Dysfunction Therapies. Sex Med Rev 2019;8:497-503.