Search

Objective: To evaluate predictors of implant length for men undergoing primary IPP placement., Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed for men undergoing primary IPP placement at 16 high-volume surgical centers. Patient demographics, comorbidities, operative approach, and implanted cylinder and rear-tip extender length were recorded. Associations between potential preoperative and intraoperative predictors of total device length were tested using non-parametric correlation and Kruskal-Wallis tests, followed by multiple regression., Results: Of 3951 men undergoing primary IPP placement from July 2016 to July 2021, the median implant length was 20 cm (IQR: 19-22). Shorter implant length was associated with increasing age in years (β = -0.01, P = .009), Asian ethnicity (β = -2.34, P = .008), history of radical prostatectomy (β = -0.35, P = .001), and use of an infrapubic surgical approach (β = -1.02, P <.001). Black or African American ethnicity was associated with the implantation of longer devices (β = 0.35, P <.001). No significant associations were recorded with BMI, history of intracavernosal injections, diabetes mellitus, tobacco use, radiation therapy, Peyronie's disease, priapism, or cavernosal dilation technique., Conclusion: The length of an implanted penile prosthesis was found to be associated with preoperative and intraoperative factors including history of radical prostatectomy and operative approach. The knowledge of these associations may assist in the preoperative counseling of patients receiving IPP and help create accurate postoperative expectations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JAM, MH, EA, KG, GH, JMH, TH, JMJ, VM, SHP, IP, HSN, AS, MS, KVR, NW, DWB - no disclosures; MSG-consultant Coloplast; AL-speaker, consultant, preceptor for Boston Scientific and Coloplast; DO-consultant Coloplast, Intuitive Surgical, Fidelis; PP-consultant Coloplast. Boston Scientific, Urofill; JS-consultant Boston Scientific and Coloplast; FAY- consultant for Coloplast, Cynosure, Antares Pharma, Clarus Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharma; MZ- consultant Endo Pharma., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The International Society of Sexual Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The International Society of Sexual Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: No validated English language patient-reported outcome (PRO) currently exists that assesses satisfaction with inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Satisfaction data have been largely based primarily on surgeon assessment of patients or using questionnaires that have not been designed for this purpose., Aim: To develop an English-language validated PRO that assesses patient satisfaction after IPP surgery., Methods: Initially, a literature review and discussions with experts defined domains important to IPP satisfaction (pain, appearance, function, overall satisfaction). The initial 35-item Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI) was developed. Cognitive interviews were then performed with IPP patients (n = 12) to gain feedback on the SSIPI domains and items. These data were used to modify SSIPI with the addition of 2 questions for a final item number of 37. Patients from 4 centers, who were between 6 months and 5 years after IPP, were administered the questionnaire through RedCap. Reliability statistics and content analysis were used to winnow questions to yield the final 16-item version of the SSIPI. Internal consistency was assessed via Cronbach's alpha and item-total correlation. Test-retest reliability was assessed via intraclass correlation coefficients using baseline and 2-week data. For convergent validity, the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction and the Self-Esteem and Relationship (SEAR) questionnaire were used. For discriminant validity, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was used. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure of the SSIPI., Outcomes: Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and confirmatory factor analysis were assessed., Results: 118 men were surveyed. Mean age was 66.8 ± 9.5 years. The 16-item SSIPI showed high internal consistency with an overall Cronbach's Alpha of 0.97 (domains 0.85-0.89). Item-total correlations for individual items to subscales ranged from 0.60 to 0.91. The overall test-retest reliability was 0.94 (domains 0.87-0.93). Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction and Self-Esteem and Relationship had correlations of 0.84 overall (domains 0.57-0.79) and 0.47 overall (domains 0.34-0.44), respectively. International Prostate Symptom Score (discriminant validity) had correlations of -0.29 overall (domains -0.17 to -0.31)., Clinical Implications: SSIPI is the first English-language validated IPP satisfaction PRO. This will enable clinicians to collect satisfaction data in a standardized way., Strengths and Limitations: As strengths we have used a rigorous psychometric process and have no industry sponsorship. Limitations include small numbers of specific subpopulations., Conclusion: The SSIPI has demonstrated robust psychometric properties. Salter CA, Bach PV, Jenkins L, et al. Development and Validation of the Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI). J Sex Med 2021;18:1641-1651., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Defining the risks associated with diabetes mellitus in patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation remains controversial. Our study aims to assess whether preoperative hemoglobin a1c and preoperative blood glucose levels are associated with an increased risk for postoperative infection in diabetic men. We performed a retrospective review of 932 diabetic patients undergoing primary penile prosthesis implantation from 18 high-volume penile prosthesis implantation surgeons throughout the United States, Germany, Belgium, and South Korea. Preoperative hemoglobin a1c and blood glucose levels within 6 h of surgery were collected and assessed in univariate and multivariate models for correlation with postoperative infection, revision, and explantation rates. The primary outcome is postoperative infection and the secondary outcomes are postoperative revision and explantation. In all, 875 patients were included in the final analysis. There were no associations between preoperative blood glucose levels or hemoglobin a1c levels and postoperative infection rates; p = 0.220 and p = 0.598, respectively. On multivariate analysis, a history of diabetes-related complications was a significant predictor of higher revision rates (p = 0.034), but was nonsignificant for infection or explantation rates. We conclude preoperative blood glucose levels and hemoglobin a1c levels are not associated with an increased risk for postoperative infection, revision, or explantation in diabetic men undergoing penile prosthesis implantation.

Purpose: American Urological Association (AUA) antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations may be insufficient for covering organisms commonly found in penile prosthesis infections. In this study we assess the difference between AUA recommended antibiotic prophylaxis and nonstandard prophylaxis in preventing device infections in penile prosthesis surgery performed in diabetic patients., Materials and Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of diabetic patients undergoing primary penile prosthesis surgery was performed between April 2003 and August 2018. Eighteen institutions from the United States, Europe and Korea contributed. The association between antibiotic prophylaxis type and postoperative penile prosthesis infections, device explantations and revision surgeries was assessed., Results: Standard AUA antibiotic prophylaxis was followed in 48.6% (391) of cases while nonstandard prophylaxis was used in 51.4% (413). Common nonstandard antibiotic prophylaxis included vancomycin-gentamycin-fluoroquinolone, clindamycin-fluoroquinolone, and vancomycin-fluoroquinolone among other combinations. Patients who received AUA prophylaxis had significantly more postoperative device infections (5.6% vs 1.9%, p <0.01) and explantations (8.3% vs 2.0%, p <0.001) compared to those who received nonstandard prophylaxis. Patients who received AUA prophylaxis had significantly higher odds of a postoperative device infection (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.3) and explantation (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.4-9.1) compared to those who received nonstandard prophylaxis., Conclusions: Diabetic men with erectile dysfunction who received standard AUA prophylaxis for penile prosthesis surgery had significantly greater odds of experiencing a postoperative device infection and device explantation compared to patients who received nonstandard prophylaxis. Our study provides a strong rationale for a prospective investigation to establish the most appropriate prophylaxis strategy in penile prosthesis surgery.

Background: Modern-day penile prostheses use infection retardant coating to decrease rates of postoperative infection, subsequently reducing explantation and revision rates as well. The Coloplast Titan models are dipped into antimicrobial solutions right before implantation, and the components used for dipping can be tailored toward the patient., Aim: To compare infection, explantation, and revision rates among different dipping solutions used before implantation for patients with diabetes receiving a Coloplast Titan implant., Methods: We systematically reviewed 932 patients with diabetes receiving a primary penile implant across 18 different centers from the period April 2003 to August 2018. Of those patients, 473 received a Coloplast device, whereas 459 received an AMS device. Data regarding the type of antimicrobial solution used before implantation were recorded for 468 patients receiving a Coloplast Titan, including whether or not they suffered a postoperative infection and if they underwent explantation and/or revision. Outcome rates were compared using Fisher's exact and Pearson's chi-square tests, and logistic regression modeling was performed to account for covariates., Outcomes: The main outcome measures of this study were postoperative infection, explantation, and revision rates., Results: Of the total 932 patients reviewed, 33 suffered a postoperative infection. Of 468 patients receiving Coloplast implants, there was a 3.4% infection rate. The most commonly used antibiotic combination before dipping was vancomycin + gentamicin (59.0%). There was a significantly lower rate of postoperative infection, explantation, and revision when vancomycin + gentamicin was used than those associated with the use of all other dipping solutions ([1.4% vs 6.4%; P = .004], [1.1% vs 8.3%; P < .001], and [2.5% vs 12.5; P < .001], respectively). After adjusting for age, body mass index, preoperative blood glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c, the use of other dips was an independent predictor of postoperative infection (odds ratio: 0.191; P = .049). The inclusion of rifampin in the dipping solution trended toward being a significant risk factor for infection (P = .057). Including antifungals in the dipping solution did not affect infection (P = .414), explantation (P = .421), or revision (P = .328) rates., Clinical Implications: Vancomycin + gentamicin was the most efficacious combination of antibiotics used for dipping in terms of preventing postoperative infection and subsequent explantation and revision., Strengths and Limitations: Data were sampled across multiple institutions providing a large sample that may be more representative of the population of interest. A key limitation of the study was its retrospective nature, which prevented us from controlling certain variables., Conclusion: The use of rifampin did not provide the same type of protection, possibly representing a shift in resistance patterns of common bacteria responsible for device infection. Towe M, Huynh LM, Osman MM, et al. Impact of Antimicrobial Dipping Solutions on Postoperative Infection Rates in Patients With Diabetes Undergoing Primary Insertion of a Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis. J Sex Med 2020;17:2077-2083., (Copyright © 2020 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

BackgroundIn 2017, a prospective multicenter, multinational, investigational pilot study was conducted examining outcomes using a novel surgical technique, the Mini-Jupette sling, for the management of erectile dysfunction (ED) patients with climacturia and/or minimal stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after prostate procedures. Climacturia has been reported in up to 64% of patients following radical prostatectomy (RP). We sought to report the 5-year outcomes from this original cohort to assess long-term safety and effectivity of the mini-jupette sling in the treatment of ED and concomitant mild SUI and/or climacturia.MethodsThis is a single-arm, multicenter, retrospective, observational study. We identified patients who were enrolled in the previous multicenter study with post-RP ED and climacturia and/or mild SUI- 2 PADS PER DAY (PPD) and underwent inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion with simultaneous placement of a mini-jupette sling. Data were collected including current PPD, subjective improvement in climacturia/SUI, complications, need for revision of IPP or additional urinary incontinence surgery, and date of most recent follow-up. SPSS was used for statistical analysis.ResultsOf the original 38 patients, 5 have since died and 10 were lost to follow-up with 23/38 (61%) patients available for evaluation of long-term outcomes. The average follow-up time was 59 months (SD =8.8) with a mean age of 69 years (SD =6.8). Most patients (n=21, 91%) had subjective improvement of SUI and climacturia. One patient with persistent bothersome incontinence underwent artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement in 2018 with no complications, while the other is still considering a repeat procedure due to minor but persistent SUI. The mean PPD decreased from 1.4 preoperatively to 0.4 at a mean of 5 years of follow-up. Most patients reported satisfaction in their urinary symptoms with 91% and 73% reporting improvement in SUI and climacturia respectively, compared to 86% and 93% respectively in the original series. One (4.3%) patient had an IPP revision for pump malfunction. There were no device infections reported.ConclusionsThe mini-jupette sling appears to be a safe and effective procedure with durable improvements in SUI and climacturia at 5 years of follow-up.