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.

State of the Reservoir: Current Concepts of Penile Implant Reservoir Placement and Potential Complications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss mechanical and surgical innovations in inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery and their implications on reservoir placement and patient outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: The past decade has seen a new emphasis on optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications associated with IPP reservoirs. Innovations in device design have accordingly yielded safer, more durable IPP outcomes over the past four decades. Modifications in surgical approach for reservoir placement abound for both traditional space of Retzius and ectopic reservoir placement techniques. Surgical and medical history, patient anatomy, and patient preference should all be considered when choosing approach for IPP reservoir placement. Prosthetic urologists should be proficient in multiple approaches to provide the best care to their patients.

Avoiding deep pelvic complications using a 'Five-Step' technique for high submuscular placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs.

OBJECTIVES: To compare our extended experience with high submuscular (HSM) reservoir placement to traditional space of Retzius (SOR) placement and to present our current, refined 'Five-Step' technique (FST) for HSM placement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected on patients undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement between January 2009 and June 2019. Re-operative cases were excluded. Reservoir-related complications and subsequent revisions were compared between SOR (2009-2012) and HSM reservoir groups (2012-2019). HSM patients were subdivided into two cohorts: 'Initial Technique' (2012-2014) and FST (2014-2019). The refined FST protocol was developed in 2014 to optimise outcomes and includes the following steps: (i) Position and Access; (ii) Develop Lower HSM Pocket; (iii) Develop Upper HSM Pocket; (iv) Reservoir Delivery (fill and fine-tune); (v) Confirm and Connect. RESULTS: Between January 2009 and June 2019, 733 total IPP procedures (586 HSM, 147 SOR) were performed by a single surgeon at our institution, 561 of which were virgin cases (430 HSM, 131 SOR) and included in this analysis. Overall, surgical revision was required in 10/430 (2.3%) HSM cases (one delayed bowel obstruction, nine herniations) and six of 131 (4.6%) SOR cases (one bladder erosion, two vascular injuries, and three herniations, P = 0.22). When comparing the FST to the Initial Technique, we noted a significant decrease in complications requiring surgical revision (P = 0.01). Among 133 cases performed with the Initial Technique, seven (5.3%) required surgical revision (one bowel obstruction after placement into the peritoneal cavity, six herniations). Among 297 FST cases, three (1.0%) required revision, all due to herniation. CONCLUSION: HSM placement of IPP reservoirs is a safe alternative to traditional SOR placement. Major deep pelvic reservoir complications were minimised using our current refined FST.

Explantation of High Submuscular Reservoirs: Safety and Practical Considerations.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, high submuscular (HSM) placement of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs has emerged as a viable alternative to space of Retzius (SOR) placement; however, data comparing the feasibility and complications of HSM vs SOR reservoir removal do not presently exist. AIM: To present a comparison of the safety, feasibility, and ease of removal of HSM vs SOR reservoirs in a tertiary care, university-based, high-volume prosthetic urology practice. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected on patients who underwent IPP reservoir removal between January 2011 and June 2020. Cases were separated into 2 cohorts based on reservoir location. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact and Chi-squared tests for categorical variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables. Timing from IPP insertion to explant was compared between the HSM and SOR groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. OUTCOMES: Time from IPP insertion to explant, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and need for a counter incision were compared between the HSM and SOR groups. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and June 2020, 106 (73 HSM, 33 SOR) patients underwent IPP removal or replacement by a single surgeon at our institution. Average time from IPP insertion to removal was 43.6 months (24.2 HSM, 52.7 SOR, P = .07)-reservoir removal occurred at the time of device explant in 70 of 106 (66%) cases. More HSM reservoirs were explanted at the time of IPP removal compared with the SOR cohort (54 of 73, 74% HSM vs 16 of 33, 48.5% SOR, P = .01). Similar rates of complications were noted between the HSM and SOR groups (1.9% vs 6.3%, P = .35). There was no significant difference in need for counter incision between the 2 groups (24 [42%] HSM vs 4 [25%] SOR, P = .16) or in average operative times (76.5 ± 38.3 minutes HSM vs 68.1 ± 34.3 minutes SOR, P = .52). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our experience with explanting HSM reservoirs supports the safety and ease of their removal. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Although the absolute cohort size is relatively low, this study reflects one of the largest single-institution experiences examining penile implant reservoir removal. In addition, reservoir location was not randomized but was instead determined by which patients presented with complications necessitating reservoir removal during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: HSM reservoir removal has comparable perioperative complication rates and operative times when compared with SOR reservoir removal. Kavoussi M, Bhanvadia RR, VanDyke ME, et al. Explantation of High Submuscular Reservoirs: Safety and Practical Considerations. J Sex Med 2020;17:2488-2494.

Reservoir Placement Considerations During Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss emerging alternative strategies for reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Innovations in penile prosthesis design have facilitated the development of various alternative approaches for reservoir placement. Avoiding the space of Retzius is particularly appealing in patients with a history of pelvic surgery and/or radiation. The high submuscular technique utilizes a low-profile reservoir in combination with the implant's lockout valve to allow for safe placement in the potential space between the anterior abdominal wall musculature and the transversalis fascia, far cephalad from the external inguinal ring and without the need for a counter-incision. Multiple recent publications have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the high submuscular technique. High submuscular inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir placement is a safe and effective alternative to placement within the space of Retzius.

Synchronous Ipsilateral High Submuscular Placement of Prosthetic Balloons and Reservoirs.

INTRODUCTION: Synchronous ipsilateral high submuscular placement of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) pressure-regulating balloons (PRBs) and inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs in a single submuscular tunnel is a novel strategy that could be advantageous for patients who have had major pelvic surgery. AIM: To report our initial experience with synchronous ipsilateral vs bilateral placement of AUS PRBs and IPP reservoirs in men undergoing implant surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing synchronous AUS and IPP placement from 2007 through 2015 by a single surgeon at our tertiary center. Patients were stratified according to ipsilateral vs bilateral placement of the AUS PRB and IPP reservoir. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reoperation rates because of infectious or erosive complications and mechanical failure were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 968 implant surgeries during the study period, 47 men had synchronous device placement, of whom 17 (36%) underwent ipsilateral placement of the PRB and reservoir. During a median follow-up of 19 months (range = 1-84 months), reoperations were necessary in 12 of 47 (26%) and were similar between groups (ipsilateral, 5 of 17, 29%; bilateral, 7 of 30, 23%; P = .73). Most reoperations were due to AUS-related complications (10 of 12, 83%) and nearly all patients with reoperation (10 of 12, 83%) had compromised urethras (ie, prior urethral surgery, radiation, or prior AUS implantation). The most common indication for reintervention was cuff erosion (4 of 47, 9%), with no difference between groups (ipsilateral, 3 of 17, 18%; bilateral, 1 of 30, 3%; P = .13). CONCLUSION: Synchronous ipsilateral high submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons could safely facilitate prosthetic surgery in patients with a history of major pelvic and inguinal surgery.

Ectopic Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Placement: An Anatomic Cadaver Model of the High Submuscular Technique.

INTRODUCTION: High submuscular ectopic placement of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs via the inguinal canal has been popularized as an alternative to the retropubic (orthotopic) location, particularly among men with prior pelvic surgery. Published results suggest minimal complications and high patient satisfaction. However, in our practice, we identified several patients presenting for IPP revision after high submuscular placement who were found to have reservoirs within the peritoneal cavity. AIM: Given the potential for complications, we performed a cadaveric study to define the anatomic location of reservoirs placed using this technique. METHODS: We utilized 10 fresh male cadavers without embalming. Bilateral ectopic reservoir placement (10 AMS Conceal [Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA] and 10 Coloplast Cloverleaf [Coloplast Corp, Humlebaek, Denmark]) was performed using the high submuscular technique via a penoscrotal incision. Strict adherence to published reports detailing the technique was emphasized to assure reliability of findings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anatomic dissection was performed to identify reservoir location within the abdominal wall layers. RESULTS: Twenty IPP reservoirs were placed without difficulty or concern for inadvertent malpositioning. Sixteen reservoirs (80%) were found anterior to the transversalis fascia, including 7 (35%) deep to the rectus muscle and 9 (45%) deep to the external oblique fascia and lateral to the rectus muscle belly. Two reservoirs (10%) were identified in the retroperitoneal space, while 1 (5%) was preperitoneal (deep to transversalis fascia) and 1 (5%) was intraperitoneal. CONCLUSION: Placement of IPP reservoirs using the high submuscular technique results in variable anatomic locations, including within or immediately superficial to the peritoneal cavity. Given the lack of immediate recognition and risk of delayed complications with suboptimal reservoir placement, further studies are mandated to assess the long-term safety of the technique.