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.

Mid-term outcomes of minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: A single-center study and literature review.

BACKGROUND: The minimally invasive infrapubic approach (MIIA) for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement has shown favorable peri-operative safety and efficacy profile, but scarce data exist on long-term follow-up. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the safety and efficacy of IPP implantation via the MIIA after a minimum 5-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified data of implanted patients prospectively included in our institutional database. Complications and functional outcomes were assessed by using validated tools. Specifically, quality of life and patient satisfaction were evaluated by the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaire. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze IPP survival (defined as a working IPP). RESULTS: Overall, 67 patients implanted by MIIA with a median (IQR) age of 64 years (61-70) were included. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 71 months (63-80). Fifteen (22%) patients experienced complications: minor (Clavien ≤2) events included changes in penile sensitivity (n = 1; 1.5%), orgasmic dysfunction (n = 1; 1.5%), pain (n = 5; 7%), urinary tract infection (n = 2; 3%), and chronic discomfort (n = 1; 1.5%); major (Clavien 3) complications were represented by mechanical failure (n = 3; 4.5%), IPP infection (n = 1; 1.5%), and cylinder protrusion (n = 1; 1.5%). The estimated IPP survival was 94% (95% CI, 91.4-96.6), 92.5% (95% CI, 89.7-95.3), and 92.5% (95% CI, 89.7-95.3) at 3, 5, and 7 years after implantation, respectively. In patients using the device at follow-up (n = 61; 91%), median (IQR) scores for QoLSPP domains demonstrated favorable functional outcomes and patient satisfaction: functional 21 (19-23), personal 16 (15-18), relational 14 (12-15), and social 12 (11-14). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study represents the longest follow-up using validated tools to assess the outcomes of IPP implantation via MIIA so far. IPP placement via MIIA confirms to be safe and to offer high satisfaction to both patients and partners at mid-term evaluation.

High flow priapism following the insertion of an inflatable penile prosthesis mimicking autoinflation: a case report.

Penile prosthesis implantation is a surgical option for erectile dysfunction when other treatments fail or the patient prefers implantation. Although penile prosthesis is generally considered safe and effective, various complications have been reported in the literature. High-flow priapism, resulting from an arteriovenous fistula between the cavernosal artery and the corpora cavernosa, is a rare complication after penile prosthesis implantation. Managing the condition as autoinflation may lead to unfortunate complications. A 54-year-old male patient underwent a penile prosthesis implantation due to erectile dysfunction lasting for 5 years. Doppler ultrasound revealed arterial insufficiency that was refractory to oral and intracavernosal treatments. A 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (Coloplast - Titan) was implanted through a midline penoscrotal incision without any complications. The patient reported uncontrolled tumescence after activating the device, which led us to suspect autoinflation. The final diagnosis was high-flow priapism due to an arteriovenous fistula in the cavernosal artery. The patient was given an antiandrogenic medication and the prosthesis was deflated for 3 months. The fistula closed without any additional intervention. High-flow priapism is a rare but potential complication of penile prosthesis implantation. Careful evaluation and management of patients' symptoms are necessary for diagnosing and treating this condition. This case highlights the importance of considering high-flow priapism as a potential cause of uncontrolled tumescence after penile prosthesis implantation and the possibility of successful non-surgical management.

Delayed closed-suction drain removal following inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institutional experience.

BACKGROUND: There are little published data regarding longer percutaneous drain durations following inflatable penile prosthesis placement; despite this, drain proponents suggest reduced scrotal hematoma formation, while detractors cite the risk of retrograde device seeding. AIM: Here, we quantify the outcomes of a multi-institutional cohort with drain durations of 48 hours or greater. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for patients undergoing primary 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement who had a postoperative drain placed. Cases were performed by 3 surgeons at 3 high-volume centers between January 1, 2020, and March 31, 2022. It was the routine practice of these surgeons to leave percutaneous drains for an interval of 48 hours or greater. R software was used to perform statistical analysis and data visualization. OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes included rates of infection and hematoma formation. Secondary outcomes included device explantation. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 224 patients meeting initial inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 patients had their drains removed before 48 hours, leaving 209 patients for the analysis. Mean drain duration was 67 ± 24.7 hours. The mean follow-up interval was 170 days. Diabetes mellitus was present in 84 (40%) patients with a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.2%. Penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches were employed (n = 114 [54.5%] vs n = 95 [45.5%]). Reservoir location was split between space of Retzius and high submuscular, with space of Retzius being more common (n = 164 [78.5%] vs n = 45 [21.5%]). Discrete hematomas were observed in 7 patients, with subsequent operative intervention on 2. Notably, both of these were infection cases. There were 3 (1.4%) total device infections. Revision for noninfection causes was required in 9 (4.3%) patients. Fisher's exact testing demonstrated significant association between hematoma formation and anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy (P = .017). On multivariable logistic regression, only anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy remained significant (P = .035). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Maintaining percutaneous closed-suction bulb drains for >48 hours following IPP placement is safe. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This multi-institutional study fills a hole in IPP perioperative literature, as there have been no previously published data regarding drain durations >48 hours. The primary limitations are the retrospective nature and lack of a control population. CONCLUSION: Maintaining closed-suction bulb drains for >48 hours following IPP implantation is safe and associated with infection rates comparable to other modern cohorts and a very low rate of hematoma formation.

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.

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.

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.

Single Dilation in Primary Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement Is Associated With Fewer Corporal Complications Than Sequential Dilation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the difference in outcomes between single dilation (SingD) and sequential dilation (SeqD) in primary penile implantation, hypothesizing that patients who undergo SeqD had higher rates of noninfectious complications. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of men undergoing primary inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Intraoperative complications and postoperative noninfectious outcomes were assessed between the two groups. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of complications. RESULTS: A total of 3293 patients met inclusion criteria. After matching, there were 379 patients who underwent SingD and 379 patients who underwent SeqD. There was no significant difference in intraoperative complications between patients who underwent SingD vs SeqD, nor was there any difference in cylinder length (20 cm with interquartile range [IQR] 18-21 cm vs 20 cm with IQR 18-20 cm respectively, P = .4). On multivariable analysis, SeqD (OR 5.23 with IQR 2.74-10, P < .001) and older age (OR 1.04 with IQR 1.01-1.06, P = .007) were predictive of postoperative noninfectious complications. There was no significant difference in intraoperative complications between patients who underwent SingD vs SeqD, nor was there any difference in cylinder length. SeqD and older age were predictive of postoperative noninfectious complications. CONCLUSION: During inflatable penile prosthesis placement in the uncomplicated patient without fibrosis, SingD is a safe technique to utilize during implantation that will minimize postoperative adverse events, and promote device longevity without loss of cylinder length.

Survival From Revision Surgery for New Rigicon Infla10 Three-piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Is Comparable to Preceding Devices.

OBJECTIVE: To report the incidence of the reoperation surgeries of nearly all the Rigicon Infla10 implants performed since device introduction in 1/2019. Inflatable penile prosthesis has some of the highest survival from revision surgery of any medical device implanted in humans [1]. We expand on previous Rigicon Infla10 research, adding more patients and increasing follow-up duration [2]. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 535 patients had Rigicon Infla10 devices implanted from 1/2019 to 8/2022. 103 surgeons from 26 centers in 15 countries participated in the study. Patient information forms were analyzed from virtually all implantations. Explantation or revision surgery for mechanical failure, infection, other medical reasons, and patient dissatisfaction were cataloged. SPSS 25.0 (IBM) was used for the statistical analysis of Kaplan Meier survival statistics. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 24.2months (7-43months). Mean patient age was 56years. Reoperation was necessary for 3.5% of subjects. Revision for mechanical failure occurred in 2.24% (12/535). The rate of explant for patient dissatisfaction was 0.56% (3/535). Revision for component out of place was 0.37% (2/535) with an infection rate and unsuccessful Peyronie's correction being 0.19% (1/535). Survival from requiring another corrective surgery at 1, 2, and 3years was 96.4%, 95.0%, and 94.0%, respectively. These initial survival rates compare favorably to devices currently available, which have been repeatedly enhanced to improve reliability. CONCLUSION: In its first 2-3years of availability, The Rigicon Infla10 inflatable penile prosthesis shows freedom from revision comparable to existing enhanced devices that have been on the market for decades.

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.

Delayed placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis is associated with a high complication rate in men with a history of ischemic priapism.

BACKGROUND: Corporal fibrosis is known to result from prolonged priapism; however, the impact of the timing of penile prosthesis placement after priapism on complication rates is poorly understood. AIM: We sought to evaluate the impact of timing of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement on complications in men with a history of ischemic priapism. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with a history of priapism undergoing IPP placement by 10 experienced implantation surgeons. We defined early placement as ≤6 months from priapism to IPP. We identified a 1:1 propensity-matched group of men without a history of priapism and compared complication rates between men who had early placement, late placement, and no history of priapism. OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome was postoperative noninfectious complications, and secondary outcomes included intraoperative complications and postoperative infection. RESULTS: A total of 124 men were included in the study with a mean age of 50.3 ± 12.7 years. A total of 62 had a history of priapism and 62 were matched control subjects. The median duration of priapism was 37 (range, 3-168) hours and the median time from ischemic priapism to IPP placement was 15 months (range, 3 days to 23 years). Fifteen (24%) men underwent early (≤6 months) IPP placement at a median time of 2 months (range, 3 days to 6 months) following the ischemic priapism event. The remaining 47 (76%) underwent placement >6 months following priapism at a median time of 31.5 months (range, 7 months to 23 years). The complication rate in the delayed placement group was 40.5% compared with 0% in the early placement group and control group. Cylinder-related complications such as migration or leak accounted for 8 (57%) of 14 of the postoperative noninfectious complications. Full-sized cylinders were used in all patients who had a cylinder related complication. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Priapism patients should be referred to prosthetic experts early to decrease complication rates in those needing an IPP. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is a multicenter study from experienced prosthetic urologists but is limited by the retrospective nature and small number of patients in the early placement group. CONCLUSION: IPP complication rates are high in men with a history of ischemic priapism, especially when implantation is delayed beyond 6 months.

Glans Adipodermal Augmentation for Management of Neophallus Fat Atrophy After Penile Implant Insertion: Surgical Technique and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our surgical technique and outcomes of glans augmentation with autologous adipodermal or acellular dermal matrix (ADM) interposition grafts for fat atrophy of the neophallus following penile implant insertion. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of glans augmentation in phalloplasty patients presenting with fat atrophy following penile prosthesis insertion. Glans augmentation is performed by making a small posterior coronal incision to preserve the shaft-to-glans dermal blood supply. A plane is made between the glans skin and the capsule of the distal penile implant cylinder. An adipodermal graft or ADM sheet graft is then sized to the glans dissection space and inserted, covering the implant capsule and filling the glans. The graft harvest site and posterior coronal incisions are then closed. The primary postoperative outcome was the recurrence of implant glans skin impingement or erosion. RESULTS: From October 2017 through January 2023, 15 patients underwent glans augmentation after penile prosthesis insertion. The mean follow-up was 20 months. Adipodermal grafts were placed in 12 (80%) patients and ADM grafts in 3 (20%) patients. Two patients developed complications requiring surgical revision and 3 patients are considering a secondary glans augmentation, for a potential surgical revision rate of 33% (5/15). There were no wound infections, implant infections, or erosions. CONCLUSION: Glans augmentation with adipodermal or ADM graft interposition between the glans skin and implant capsule improves the neophallus appearance and may help prevent future implant erosion in phalloplasty patients who develop fat atrophy after penile implant insertion.

Management of urologic prosthetic reservoirs at the time of inguinal or pelvic surgery.

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.

Complications and troubleshooting in primary penile prosthetic surgery-a review.

Penile implant surgery is the gold standard to treat erectile dysfunction with success rates of over 90%. The first penile implants were developed in the early 1900s. Since then, several types of implants have been developed including malleable implants, two-piece inflatable implants, and three-piece inflatable implants. The three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis, which was introduced in 1973, is the most widely used type of penile implant in the United States. Penile implant surgery has undergone numerous advancements over the years, improving outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, as with any surgical procedure, there are risks and complications associated with penile implant surgery. It is important for surgeons to understand these potential complications and to have strategies in place to manage and prevent them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their patients.

Residual penile curvature correction by modeling during penile prosthesis implantation in Peyronie's disease patients.

With the advent of new surgical techniques to treat Peyronie's disease with concomitant erectile dysfunction, there remains a question of whether manual modeling (MM), an older technique, still has a place in the treatment algorithm within penile prosthesis (PP) surgery. While the implantation of a PP often corrects moderate to severe curvature, penile curvature can remain greater than 30°, even when concurrent MM is performed during prothesis implantation. There are new variations of the MM technique that have been recently utilized in the intraoperative and postoperative setting to achieve penile curvature less than 30° when the implant is fully inflated. The inflatable PP, regardless of the specific model of choice, is preferred over the noninflatable PP when utilizing the MM technique. MM should be the first line of treatment for persisting intraoperative penile curvature after the placement of a PP due to its long-term efficacy, noninvasive approach, and significantly low risk of adverse effects.

Bilateral Cavernosal Artery Ligation to Treat Ischemic Priapism Following Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the first known case of recurrent acute priapism after penile prosthesis implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 60-year-old gentleman with a history of recurrent ischemic priapism without hemoglobinopathy presented with refractory erectile dysfunction and underwent uncomplicated penile prosthesis placement. His course was complicated by early acute ischemic priapism confirmed via ultrasound. Due to his pain, attempts to relieve the priapism using ultrasound-guided phenylephrine injections were attempted but were unsuccessful. RESULTS: He subsequently underwent exploration with confirmation of distal ischemic priapism followed by brisk bright red blood from the proximal corpora upon device externalization. A perineal exploration was performed and the bilateral cavernosal arteries were suture ligated with immediate relief. The device was reimplanted and the patient recovered uneventfully. CONCLUSION: We report the first known case of ischemic priapism following inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. The details of this case challenge the dogma that priapism is a binary event and instead supports an imbalance between unopposed cavernosal artery inflow possibly due to vascular calcifications and compromised venous outflow due to the presence of the device. Prosthetic urologists should be aware of this rare phenomenon and consider all available approaches on an individualized case-by-case basis.

Outcomes of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis following Radical Cystectomy: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of inflatable-penile-prosthesis (IPP) implantation after radical-cystectomy compared to other etiologies of erectile dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All IPPs within the past 20 years in a large regional health system were reviewed, and erectile dysfunction (ED) etiology was determined as radical-cystectomy, radical-prostatectomy, or organic/other ED. Cohorts were generated by 1:3 propensity score match using age, body mass index, and diabetes status. Baseline demographics and relevant comorbidities were evaluated. Clavien-Dindo complications, grade, and reoperation were assessed. Multivariable logarithmic regression was used to identify the predictors of 90-day complications following IPP implantation. Log-rank analysis was used to assess the time-to-reoperation after IPP implantation in patients with a history of cystectomy compared with noncystectomy etiologies. RESULTS: Of 2600 patients, 231 subjects were included in the study. Comparing patients undergoing IPP for cystectomy vs pooled noncystectomy indications, those who underwent radical-cystectomy had a higher overall complication rate (24% vs 9%, p = 0.02). Clavien-Dindo complication grades did not differ across groups. Reoperation was significantly more common following cystectomy (cystectomy: 21% vs noncystectomy: 7%, p = 0.01), however time to reoperation did not differ significantly by indication (cystectomy: 8 years vs noncystectomy: 10 years,p = 0.09). Among cystectomy patients, 85% of reoperations were due to mechanical failure. CONCLUSION: Compared to other erectile dysfunction etiologies, patients undergoing IPP with a history of cystectomy have an increased risk of complications within 90-days of implantation and need for surgical device revision, but no greater risk for high-grade complications. Overall IPP remains a valid treatment option after cystectomy.

Partial Component Exchange of a Non-Infected Inflatable Penile Prosthesis is Associated With a Higher Complication Rate.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the infectious and non-infectious complications in men undergoing Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) revision with partial and complete component exchange for mechanical malfunction. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent IPP revision. Men undergoing procedures for implant infection were excluded. Patients were divided into those who had complete exchange of the entire device or partial exchange of only one or 2 components. Infectious and non-infectious complications were compared between groups. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-eight men had complete exchange of the entire device and 85 had partial component exchange. Men undergoing partial exchange had a significantly higher infection rate (7.1% vs 2.2%, P = .031). The partial exchange group also was more likely to receive antifungals (51.8 vs 16.6%, P < .001), have a modified salvage washout (77.4 vs 60.2%, P = .004), and less likely to receive vancomycin and gentamicin (63.5 vs 83.7%, P < .001). Time to revision was significantly shorter in the partial exchange group (44.9 vs 168.2 months, P < .001). Mean follow-up was slightly longer in the complete exchange group (18.3 vs 13.0 months). In multivariable analysis, partial exchange surgery, vancomycin and gentamicin prophylaxis, modified salvage washout, and antifungal prophylaxis were no longer associated with postoperative infections. The partial exchange group had greater rates of non-infectious complications (21.2% vs 9.5%, P = .005) such as pump malfunction and tubing breakage. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing partial component revision had more infectious and non-infectious complications. These findings suggest that partial component exchange increases complications in men undergoing IPP revision.

Penile implant infection part 3: the changing spectrum of treatment.

Penile prosthesis infection remains a rare but devastating complication of implantation. Historically, management of device infection was always extirpation. While certainly effective, device removal leaves an unhappy patient with a shortened penis. In this last part of a three-part series on the topic of penile prosthesis infection, we seek to highlight new and emerging ideas of infection management which have allowed surgeons the option of preserving the implanted status in select patients.