ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The artificial urinary sphincter and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis each require a fluid storage component and thus have components in the inguinal and pelvic regions. Because of this, patients with urologic prosthetics sometimes present challenges during future nonprosthetic operations. Presently, there is no established guideline for device management with ensuing inguinal or pelvic surgery. AIMS: This article outlines concerns during pelvic and inguinal surgery for patients with an artificial urinary sphincter and/or inflatable penile prosthesis and proposes an algorithm for preoperative surgical planning and decision making. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of the literature on operative management of these prosthetic devices. Publications were identified by searching electronic databases. Only peer-reviewed publications available in English were considered for this review. RESULTS: We review the important considerations as well as available options for operative management of these prosthetic devices during subsequent nonprosthetic surgery and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each. Finally, we suggest a framework for helping surgeons determine which management strategy is most appropriate for their individual patients. CONCLUSION: The best management strategy will differ depending on patient values, the planned surgery, and patient-specific factors. Surgeons should understand and counsel patients on all available options and encourage informed, shared decision making to determine the best individualized approach.
