Androgens and Urethral Health: How Hypogonadism Affects Postoperative Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Artificial Urinary Sphincter or Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of androgens in penile and urethral health, we sought to understand what impact hypogonadism may have on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) outcomes. We hypothesize that patients with hypogonadism are at increased risk of reinterventions, complications, and infections. METHODS: We queried the TriNetX Global Database in March 2023 for patients receiving an AUS or IPP, looking at lifetime reintervention, complication, and infection rates. We conducted multiple comparisons: (1) eugonadal patients against hypogonadal patients, (2) hypogonadal patients on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) against hypogonadal patients not on TRT, and (3) hypogonadal patients on TRT against eugonadal patients. RESULTS: Hypogonadal patients undergoing AUS had more complications (33.5% vs 28.3%), higher reintervention rates (27.7% vs 24.3%) and higher infection rates (7.3% vs 6.8%), albeit none reaching significance. Hypogonadal patients undergoing IPP had significantly higher infection rates (6.3% vs 4.4%, RR 1.5 (1.04, 2.04)) and reintervention rates (14.9% vs 11.9%, RR 1.3 (1.04, 1.61)), but not complication rates (21.9% vs 18.9%). When comparing patients with hypogonadism on TRT vs off TRT, there was not a significant difference in reinterventions, or complications, in AUS and IPP patients, but there were significantly more infections in IPP patients (7.0% vs 3.9%, RR 1.9 (1.002, 3.5)). CONCLUSION: Hypogonadal patients have more reinterventions, complications, and infections following urologic implant surgery, to varying levels of significance. TRT may not be completely protective to improve tissue health but with many limitations that should be explored in further research.

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.

Long-term outcomes after plaque excision grafting for Peyronie's disease and subanalysis of patients who undergo the procedure despite preoperative counseling against it.

BACKGROUND: Plaque excision and grafting (PEG) has been recommended for patients with Peyronie's disease (PD) with >60° curvature and/or hinge effect and strong preoperative erections, while placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is recommended when rigidity is suboptimal. Nevertheless, many patients counseled to undergo an IPP decline and insist on proceeding with PEG due to personal preference or desire to avoid an implant. AIM: We aim to review long-term outcomes in patients who underwent PEG for PD at our institution and investigate whether there is any difference in long-term outcomes in patients who undergo PEG despite a recommendation to undergo IPP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review from 2007 to 2021 on PEG surgery performed at a single tertiary care institution in patients ≥18 years old who had >3 months of follow-up. OUTCOMES: Postoperative information was gathered from the electronic medical record, including postoperative erectile function, patient satisfaction, and the ability to engage in penetrative sexual intercourse. RESULTS: An overall 251 patients underwent PEG with a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR, 6-54). Among these, 54 (22%) were initially advised to undergo IPP but elected for PEG. Patients who underwent PEG despite counseling to undergo IPP reported lower postoperative ability to engage in intercourse (51% vs 76%). Seven (13%) patients initially advised to undergo IPP eventually received an IPP, relative to 7 (4%) initially advised to undergo PEG. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Thorough preoperative assessment of erectile function and penile deformity can guide clinician counseling and manage patient expectations during decision making between PEG surgery and IPP implantation for PD. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, high attrition to follow-up, and risk of recall and selection bias. This is a large study with a median follow-up of 12 months, with a high-volume single surgeon who treats patients in a specialized population of complex cases. CONCLUSION: Patients who were initially counseled to undergo IPP due to suboptimal erectile rigidity but elected for PEG had worse postoperative ability to engage in penetrative intercourse, and a higher proportion of these patients eventually received an IPP.

Penoscrotal approach for inflatable penile prosthesis implant: why it should be preferred.

INTRODUCTION: Inflatable penile prosthesis are the definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction. The two most used surgical approaches to position the implants are the penoscrotal and the infrapubic. Current trends showed that the penoscrotal approach is extensively preferred however, there is not conclusive evidence demonstrating the superiority of one technique over the other. The aim of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence available and to underline strengths and weaknesses of the two techniques. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed to identify relevant published articles. The included studies had to explicitly examine the use of three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis with a focus on the surgical access method and complications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-six articles were included in the review: seven narrative reviews, five retrospective observational studies, five prospective observational studies, and nine mixed methodology studies. The most frequent approach was the penoscrotal, which was also found more comfortable (RG1) by the operators in one study. The infrapubic approach lasts less and one study demonstrated higher satisfaction by the patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of significant differences in complications among the penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches. While the infrapubic approach is faster and patients were more satisfied, the penoscrotal approach is the most used by far. This is likely related to the more straightforward procedure through this access and the excellent surgical field exposure. For these reasons, it is also preferred in the most complex cases.

Patients' attitude with surgery for Peyronie's disease: results from a multicentric European study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of conservative therapies for Peyronie's disease (PD), surgery is commonly utilized for the treatment of bothersome curvatures due to its potential effectiveness, although it carries intrinsic risks and may not universally lead to satisfactory outcomes. AIM: To explore the rate and factors influencing patients' willingness to undergo surgery for PD. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected in 5 European academic centers between 2016 and 2020. Data included age, time from PD onset, penile pain, curvature degree, difficulty at penetration, hourglass deformity, erectile dysfunction (ED), and previous treatments. All patients were offered conservative treatments, either medications or injections. Tunical shortening or lengthening procedures were offered as an alternative to conservative treatments, when indicated. Penile prosthesis was offered to those with concomitant ED. Patients' attitudes with surgery were recorded. Logistic regression analyses tested the profile of patients who were more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. OUTCOMES: Patients' willingness to undergo surgery for PD. RESULTS: This study included 343 patients with a median age of 57.3 years (IQR, 49.8-63.6) and a median penile curvature of 40.0° (IQR, 30.0°-65.0°). Overall, 161 (47%) experienced penetration difficulties and 134 (39%) reported ED. Additionally, hourglass deformity and penile shortening were reported by 48 (14%) and 157 (46%), respectively. As for previous treatments, 128 (37%) received tadalafil once daily; 54 (16%) and 44 (13%), intraplaque verapamil and collagenase injections; and 30 (9%), low-intensity shock wave therapy. Significant curvature reduction (≥20°) was observed in 69 (20%) cases. Only 126 (37%) patients were open to surgery for PD when suggested. At logistic regression analysis after adjusting for confounders, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00; P = .02), more severe curvatures (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; P < .0001), and difficulty in penetration (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.04-3.41; P = .03) were associated with a greater attitude to consider surgical treatment. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The need for effective nonsurgical treatments for PD is crucial, as is comprehensive patient counseling regarding surgical risks and benefits, particularly to younger males with severe curvatures. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Main limitations are the cross-sectional design and the potential neglect of confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PD, having a lower inclination toward surgery, emphasize the need for effective nonsurgical alternatives and accurate counseling on the risks and benefits of PD surgery, particularly for younger men with severe curvatures.

Evaluation of patient satisfaction using the validated French version of the SSIPI questionnaire after inflatable penile implantation.

BACKGROUND: Penile prothesis (PP) is a recommended treatment for erectile dysfunction that is refractory to less invasive treatments, but there are few validated tools to assess patient satisfaction. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction after PP implantation using the French Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI) questionnaire. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and perioperative data were collected from all consecutive patients who underwent PP implantation in our center between 2016 and 2021. The French SSIPI questionnaire was completed during a telephone call with each patient by an independent investigator. OUTCOMES: A good functional result was considered when the total SSIPI score was >48, corresponding to a score of >3 for each item. RESULTS: The median global SSIPI score for the cohort was 66 (interquartile range [IQR], 60-73), and 53 (89.8%) patients were satisfied. The appearance of the penis with the PP was the item that had the lowest score for satisfaction (median score 23 [IQR, 19-26]), while the patients reported almost no pain (median score 10 [IQR, 9-10]). When patients with a total score of ≤64 were compared with those with a score of >64, PP size was significantly greater in the group with better functional results (P = .03). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Assessment of patient satisfaction with a PP is important because this is the main criterion used to judge the success of surgery. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the satisfaction of patients with a PP using the French-validated version of SSIPI questionnaire. However, patients came from a single center and the population size was small. CONCLUSION: Almost 90% of patients with a PP were satisfied with the device when satisfaction was assessed using the SSIPI questionnaire.

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.

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.

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.

Perspective: Residual penile curvature correction during penile prosthesis implantation by plication in Peyronie's patients.

For patients with large calcified tunical plaque or severe corporal fibrosis which are likely to have a pronounced and persistent residual curvature which may not be correct by penile prosthesis implantation alone, other adjunctive manoeuvres such as penile plication and/or plaque incision with grafting may be necessary. The sequence between penile plication and penile prosthesis implantation is largely dependent on several factors such as the severity of penile curvature, the presence of (calcified) tunical plaque(s) and whether aggressive corporal dilation and subsequent penile remodelling with an inflated implant can straighten any residual penis curvature. The advantages of pre-placement of penile plication sutures prior to penile prosthesis implantation are the avoidance of inadvertent damage to the underlying penile prosthesis implant, the ability to adjust the tension on the rows of the plication sutures based on residual curvature with the device fully inflated, and potentially minimising the duration of surgery. In contrast, penile prosthesis implantation followed by penile plication to correct residual curvature, this sequence of surgery may negate the need for penile plications if penile remodelling is effective, or the residual curvature is less than 15 degrees where postoperative manual remodelling may continue to improve the penile cosmesis. When performed by expert surgeons and adhering to safe surgical principles, there is no doubt that patients will be satisfied with the outcomes and highly appreciative of the final penile cosmesis and the ensuing optimal outcomes.

Lightweight macroporous mesh can be used for corporal reconstruction during penile prosthesis surgery.

BACKGROUND: Options to reinforce or reconstruct the corpora cavernosa during penile prosthesis surgery are limited. Synthetic grafts may confer a higher infection risk. Lightweight macroporous mesh is a promising alternative due to better integration and tissue ingrowth. AIM: The study sought to report the first experience of using lightweight mesh to reinforce or reconstruct the corpora. METHODS: The medical records of all patients undergoing insertion or revision of penile prosthesis between May 2016 and May 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient characteristics, management, and outcomes were extracted in which mesh was used for corporal reconstruction. Poliglecaprone-25/polypropylene mesh (UltraPro) was used in all cases. The surgical technique and alternatives were summarized. OUTCOMES: The outcomes were infection rate, postoperative complications by Clavien-Dindo classification, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Mesh was required during penile prosthesis surgery in 21 men (median age 56 [range, 18-74] years). Reasons for reconstruction were severe corporal fibrosis (n = 6), impending erosion (n = 6), crossover/perforation (n = 6), congenital corporal agenesis (n = 2), and excision of Peyronie's plaque. All but 2 patients (with corporal agenesis) presented for revision penile prosthesis surgery with a median number of previous revision attempts of 2 (range, 1-5). Two (10%) patients required explant after a mean follow-up of 23 ± 8.7 months. One man developed infection of the device 2 years after surgery, translating to an infection rate of 5% despite a high prevalence of diabetes (25%) in this cohort. Another required explantation due to debilitating chronic pain after 3 months. Further revision surgery for stiction syndrome was required in a third patient. Finally, another man was not satisfied with the position of the pump within the scrotum or the axial rigidity of the device, despite a second opinion suggesting no issues with the device. All men were sexually active following surgery. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A lightweight mesh can be considered to reinforce or reconstruct the corpora cavernosa in complex cases in which there are no alternative techniques available. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study using a lightweight macroporous mesh for revision penile prosthesis surgery. This was a well-characterized cohort of patients. A larger cohort with 5-year follow-up would be preferable. CONCLUSION: These early results suggest that a lightweight macroporous mesh may be an acceptable synthetic graft for corporal reconstruction. Poliglecaprone-25/polypropylene mesh may be ideal because it is partially absorbable, easy to handle, and not bulky.

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.

Patient selection, counseling and preparation for penile prosthesis.

The penile prosthesis has revolutionized the management of erectile dysfunction and is a mainstay in the treatment of this clinical entity. The goal of proper patient selection and counseling is to achieve a satisfactory outcome for the patient. Most patients receiving a penile prosthesis are satisfied with their outcome, and while the penile prosthesis generally allows for high satisfaction rates, avenues for dissatisfaction can arise. Our aim is to aid the prosthetic urologist in identifying such avenues by discussing what factors can lead to a dissatisfied patient. Even a technically successful surgical outcome in the improperly counseled patient can have negative consequences for the patient and the patient-physician relationship. Satisfaction in the penile prosthesis arena can be variably defined and viewed from different perspectives. As such, establishing a personalized framework of expectation management, even in the patient who poses challenging factors, is paramount in preparation for penile prosthesis implantation.

Revisión sistemática de la implantación de prótesis de pene en cirugía mayor ambulatoria / Systematic review of the implantation of penile prosthesis in major ambulatory surgery

Introducción y objetivo La implantación de prótesis deZ pene (PP) es una alternativa eficaz para la disfunción eréctil. Aunque inicialmente la cirugía de PP se realizaba en régimen hospitalario, existe una tendencia creciente a realizar el implante de PP en un modelo de cirugía mayor ambulatoria (CMA). El objetivo de este estudio es realizar una revisión sistemática de la literatura para identificar la evidencia disponible sobre la implantación de PP en el marco de la CMA en comparación con el procedimiento realizado en régimen hospitalario. Material y métodos Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos electrónicas PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library y MEDES y en los suplementos no indexados de los congresos científicos para identificar artículos relacionados con la implantación quirúrgica de PP en CMA hasta febrero de 2021. Los términos de búsqueda incluyeron prótesis de pene, disfunción eréctil, cirugía ambulatoria, atención ambulatoria y cirugía. Resultados Entre las 171 publicaciones obtenidas (51 en PubMed, 73 en EMBASE, 3 en Cochrane, 2 mediante MEDES y 42 mediante búsqueda manual), se seleccionaron finalmente 5 estudios. No hubo diferencias significativas entre la CMA y el régimen hospitalario en términos del tipo de dispositivo, el abordaje quirúrgico o la ubicación del reservorio. Las tasas de complicaciones observadas en ambos grupos fueron similares. La implantación de PP en régimen de CMA supuso un menor coste que la cirugía en régimen hospitalario y se asoció con tasas aceptables de satisfacción de los pacientes y un adecuado control del dolor. Conclusiones Los estudios demostraron que la implantación de PP en régimen de CMA puede lograr resultados similares en términos de seguridad y satisfacción a la implantación de PP en el régimen hospitalario, pudiendo también reducir los costes y mejorar la eficiencia. Esta investigación podría ayudar a los responsables de la toma de decisiones a extender la cirugía de PP al régimen ambulatorio (AU)

Introduction and objective Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation is an effective option for erectile dysfunction. Although initially PP surgery was carried out in an inpatient setting, there is a growing trend to implant PP in a major ambulatory surgery (MAS). This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify available evidence of the implantation of PP under MAS setting and go carry out a comparison between MAS and inpatient procedures. Material and methods PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and MEDES electronic databases and non-indexed supplements for scientific congresses were searched to identify articles related to the surgical implantation of PP in MAS up to February 2021. Key search terms included penile prosthesis, erectile dysfunction, ambulatory surgery, ambulatory care, and surgery. Results Among 171 publications retrieved (51 PubMed, 73 EMBASE, 3 Cochrane, 2 using MEDES and 42 manual searching), 5 studies were finally selected. There were no significant differences between MAS or inpatient setting in terms of the type of device, surgical approach, or location of reservoir. Complication rates observed in both groups were similar. Implantation of PP in MAS was less expensive than inpatient surgery and was associated with acceptable patient satisfaction rates and adequate pain control. Conclusions Studies demonstrated that outpatient PP surgery can achieve similar outcomes in terms of safety and satisfaction to implantation of PP in the inpatient setting, while it could reduce costs and improve the efficiency. This research could provide support decision makers to extend PP surgery into the ambulatory setting (AU)

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.