Malleable penile prosthesis is a cost-effective treatment for refractory ischemic priapism.

INTRODUCTION: Refractory ischemic priapism (RIP) can be difficult to treat, consuming significant healthcare-related resources. Acute insertion of a malleable penile prosthesis (MPP) has been reported as an effective therapy that treats the priapism and restores sexual function. AIM: We report our 6-year, urban public hospital experience with acute insertion of MPP in patients with RIP. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients receiving MPPs for RIP from 2007 to 2013. Data analyzed included duration of erection, number of emergency room (ER) visits, hospital admissions, days of hospitalization, and postoperative course. Costs were estimated using standard Medicare reimbursement rates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Healthcare-related costs of treatment of RIP episodes in men presenting to our institution. RESULTS: During the study period, 14 men underwent MPP placement acutely for refractory priapism. Thirteen presented with RIP, and one had stuttering priapism over a 14-day hospitalization. Etiologies included sickle cell anemia (4/13, 29%), medication-induced (3/14, 21%), and idiopathic (7/14, 50%). Average preoperative duration of RIP was 82 hours with considerable consumption of health-care resources (average US $83,818 estimated cost, 4 ER visits [range 1-27], 2 hospital admissions [range 1-5], 1.5 shunt procedures [range 1-3], 5 irrigation and drainage procedures using phenylephrine injection [range 2-20], and 5 hospital admission days [range 2-14]). All patients were discharged within 24 hours of MPP surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The management of RIP is associated with multiple ER visits, prolonged hospital admissions, and significant resource utilization. MPP insertion is efficacious for the immediate resolution of refractory priapism, with potential cost and resource benefits.

High submuscular versus space of Retzius placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs: results of a surgeon survey.

INTRODUCTION: High submuscular (HSM) inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoir insertion is a new technique that involves placing the reservoir high beneath the muscles of the abdominal wall. We queried a variety of surgeons to assess their impressions of how HSM reservoir placement compares with traditional space of Retzius (SOR) placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nationwide group of urologists trained in HSM reservoir placement was surveyed to assess preferences and concerns compared to SOR placement. Using a Likert scale survey, we compared HSM to traditional SOR placement with regard to ease of implementation, surgical preference, and patient safety. Results were analyzed according to numbers of implants performed by the surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 25 urologists from eight states participated in this survey (12 residents and 13 attending surgeons). Overall, surgeons report that HSM placement is safer (p < 0.001). The participants believed it conveyed lower risk to visceral (p < 0.001) and vascular (p < 0.001) structures. Moreover it was easier to learn (p = 0.008) and to teach (p = 0.002). The majority (17/25, 68%) prefer HSM reservoir placement, while 4/25 (16%) are neutral, and 4/25 (16%) prefer SOR. Among high volume implanters (> 20 implants/year), 7/9 (78%) prefer the HSM technique and report that it is safer (p = 0.001) with lower risk of visceral (p = 0.010) and vascular (p < 0.001) injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists trained in HSM reservoir placement report that this technique is readily implemented, strongly preferred, and safer for patients.