The 51-60 cm H2O Artificial Urinary Sphincter Pressure Regulating Balloon: Indications and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the role and long-term outcomes of using the 51-60cm H2O pressure regulating balloon (PRB) in male patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). METHODS: From 2005-2021, 90 patients with a variety of urethral risk factors underwent AUS placement with use of the low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB to treat stress incontinence. Patient demographics, indication for use of the 51-60 cm H2O PRB, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were examined and Pearson's chi squared test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to identify associations with future revisions, erosion, and mechanical failure. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included in the study. After median follow-up of 46.6months (range: 6-146months), 4 (4.44%) patients developed an erosion-related complication that required device removal, 4 developed an infection, and 3 underwent surgery for pump relocation. One patient had a reported mechanical failure of unknown source. Thirty patients underwent revision surgery to reduce incontinence. Of the 4 patients with erosion, 1 was due to iatrogenic catheterization. The remaining 3 had numerous urethral risk factors. Univariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of cuff erosion, infection, and revision in patients with a 51-60 cm H2O PRB. No significant associations were found including prior pelvic radiation, age at AUS placement, presence of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), prior AUS erosion, or previous urethroplasty. CONCLUSION: The low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB can be used in high-risk male patients with urinary incontinence with low rates of complications including erosion, infection, and mechanical failure. While patients may choose to undergo future revisional surgery to improve continence, the 51-60 cm H2O PRB should be considered as the initial PRB in patients with urethral risk factors.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Three-dimensional printed hydrogel model vs cadaver: comparing inflatable penile prosthesis training and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis implantation offers a durable, safe, and effective treatment option for male erectile dysfunction; however, many urologists feel apprehensive and uncomfortable placing penile prostheses due to limited training, low surgical experience, and intra- and postoperative complication management. AIM: To compare a previously validated hydrogel inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) training model with cadaver simulations across 4 main categories: anatomic replication and realism, procedural replication and realism, educational effectiveness, and efficacy and safety. METHODS: An overall 88 participants (15 attendings, 18 fellows, and 55 residents) performed guided IPP placements on a cadaver and a hydrogel model. Based on a 5-point Likert scale, postsurveys were used to assess the participants' opinions regarding anatomic replication and realism, procedural replication and realism, educational effectiveness, and safety between the hydrogel model and cadavers. OUTCOMES: A direct head-to-head scenario was created, allowing participants to fully utilize the hydrogel model and cadaver, which ensured the most accurate comparison possible. RESULTS: A total of 84% agreed that the hydrogel model replicates the relevant human cadaveric anatomy for the procedure, whereas 69% agreed that the hydrogel tissue resembles the appearance of cadaveric tissue. Regarding the pubic bone, outer skin, corporal bodies, dartos layer, and scrotum, 79%, 74%, 82%, 46%, and 30% respectively agreed that the hydrogel tissue resembled the texture/behavior of cadavers. Furthermore, 66% of participants agreed that the hydrogel model replicates all the procedural steps. Specifically, participants agreed that the model replicates the skin incision/dartos dissection (74%), placement of stay suture and corporotomy (92%), corporal dilation (81%), measurement of prosthetic size (98%), reservoir placement (43%), IPP placement (91%), scrotal pump placement (48%), and skin closure (51%). Finally, 86%, 93%, and 78% agreed that the hydrogel model is useful for improving technical skills, as a teaching/practicing tool, and as an evaluation tool, respectively. To conclude, 81% of participants stated that they would include the hydrogel model platform in their current training. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: By replicating the IPP procedure, the hydrogel model offers an additional high-fidelity training opportunity for urologists, allowing them to improve their skills and confidence in placing penile prostheses, with the goal of improving patient surgical outcomes. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The hydrogel training model allows users to perform the entire IPP placement procedure with high anatomic realism and educational effectiveness, maintaining many of the high-fidelity benefits seen in cadavers while improving safety and accessibility. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, this high-fidelity nonbiohazardous training model can be used to supplement and bolster current IPP training curriculums.

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.

Intermediate-term results of TachoSil grafting to correct residual curvature during inflatable penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie's disease.

Grafting techniques may be mandatory to improve residual penile curvature during inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation in Peyronie's disease patients. We aimed to report the intermediate-term outcomes of grafting with TachoSil (Corza Health, San Diego, USA) in patients with severe erectile dysfunction and concomitant complex Peyronie's disease through a prospective cohort study. We included 25 patients that underwent the PICS (penile implant in combination with Sealing) technique from 2017 to 2020 and were evaluated 24 months after surgery. Their mean age was 61.8 ± 8.7 years. Total straightness of the penis was achieved in 21 cases, while 4 (16%) patients presented a residual penile curvature of less than 15°. The mean penile length increased significantly (15 ± 1.2 to 16.4 ± 1.6 cm, p < 0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred, while, postoperatively, two patients developed fever and three scrotal hematoma, which resolved spontaneously. At three and six weeks, as well as at 24 months after surgery, no further complications occurred, and no cases of penile glans hyposensitivity were observed. At the 24-month follow-up evaluation, the 5-item score of the International Index of Erectile Function was 23.7 ± 1.4 (range: 20.5-25) and all patients responded positively to questions 2 and 3 of the sexual encounter profile questionnaire (p < 0.001 for all outcomes compared to baseline). Accordingly, the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction score improved from 45.8 ± 6 at baseline to 25.6 ± 4.6 at 24 months, p < 0.001. Grafting with TachoSil to improve residual penile curvature during IPP is a safe and effective procedure. Nevertheless, careful patient selection and counseling, surgeon's experience with the technique, and strict postoperative penile rehabilitation are the main factors for treatment success and high satisfaction rates.

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.

History of penile implants: from implants made of bone to modern inflatable penile implants.

Penile prostheses are implantable devices used to definitively treat erectile dysfunction when previous forms of treatment have failed. The first example of a penile implant dates to 1935, when a rib was inserted in a neo-phallus reconstructed after a traumatic amputation. Since then, alternative artificial devices were adopted as penile prosthetic implants. The evolution of prosthetic devices had a dramatic thrust in 1973 when the first inflatable penile prosthesis was worldwide presented. Thanks to advances in device materials, design, surgical implant techniques, and perioperative management, nowadays inflatable penile prostheses are one of the most adopted definitive therapy for patients with drug-refractory erectile dysfunction or refusing alternative forms of treatments. Moreover, the clinical indications for inflatable penile prosthesis have also expanded, including female-to-male transmen or men underwent penile reconstruction due to congenital aphallia or traumatic or surgical penile amputation. In order to summarise the process behind the development and evolution of penile prosthesis, we aimed at performing a historical review of the currently available literature to provide an easy and comprehensive overview of the topic. The understanding of the historical process behind the evolution of inflatable penile prostheses will drive further innovation to increase efficiency and the rate of patients satisfaction.

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.