State of the Reservoir: Current Concepts of Penile Implant Reservoir Placement and Potential Complications

Advancements in ectopic reservoir placement for inflatable penile prostheses

INTRODUCTION

Traditional reservoir placement (RP) into the space of Retzius during three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation has been associated with serious bladder, iliac vessel, and bowel complications, encouraging the development of "ectopic" RP methods.

OBJECTIVES

In this study we sought to document an up-to-date, comprehensive analysis of ectopic RP techniques regarding both patient satisfaction and clinical complications.

METHODS

A PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library literature search of English language articles from 1966 to 2023 with keywords "inflatable," "penile prosthesis," "reservoir," and "placement" gave 179 publications, 70 of which were included in a comprehensive chronology and investigation after review. Overall, 12 retrospective studies detailing 9 ectopic RP techniques were compared for discussion.

RESULTS

Sufficient data for comparison were found for 9 ectopic RP methods: posterior/anterior to transversalis fascia (PTF/ATF); high submuscular (HSM); HSM "Five-Step" technique (HSM-FST); lateral retroperitoneal (LR); sub-external oblique (SEO); direct vision, transfascial (DVT); low submuscular with transfascial fixation (LSM w/ TFF); and midline submuscular reservoir (MSMR). Although rare, serious complications have occurred with the use of ectopic RP techniques: 2 bladder perforations on implantation with PTF RP, a delayed bowel obstruction with HSM RP, and a colonic injury in a patient with a history of colon surgery with LR RP. Generally, herniation is the most relevant clinical complication in ectopic RP. At the time of this review there was no reported herniation with LR, SEO, LSM w/ TFF, or MSMR, likely due to fixation steps and/or reinforced spaces. Regarding patient satisfaction, HSM, HSM-FST, and LSM w/ TFF had similarly high rates of patient satisfaction while other techniques had no patient satisfaction data available. Importantly, reservoir palpability/visibility relates directly to patient satisfaction. Levels of palpability and/or visibility were reported in patients who underwent PTF/ATF, HSM, HSM-FST, SEO, and LSM w/ TFF, whereas no palpability was reported in patients who underwent LR, DVT, and MSMR.

CONCLUSION

Proper comparison of ectopic methods is not possible without standardized patient surveys, consistent complication reporting, and larger sample sizes, indicating the need for a large, prospective, multisurgeon trial.

A propensity score-matched analysis of intra- and postoperative penile prosthetic complications in the solid organ transplant population

INTRODUCTION

Solid organ transplant (SOT) has an anticipated higher risk of penile prosthesis (PP) complications related to immunosuppression and surgical approach post-SOT. It is still not determined if PP surgery in the SOT population incurs these same higher risks.

OBJECTIVES

To observe differences in intra- and postoperative PP complications between SOT and non-SOT cases from the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, a large real-world database of deidentified patient data from 56 health care organizations within the United States.

METHODS

We used the TriNetX database to perform a propensity score-matched cohort study comparing 10-year outcomes between patients with and without a SOT (kidney, heart, lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine) who underwent a PP procedure. Cohorts were matched on age, race/ethnicity, history of pelvic and abdominal surgery, overweight and obesity status, type 2 diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, substance use disorders, socioeconomic difficulties, anticoagulant/antiplatelet medications, and spinal cord injury. Outcomes included intra- and perioperative complications as well as prosthetic complications (mechanical malfunction, fibrosis, displacement, hemorrhage, pain, stenosis, removal with or without replacement, and complex [all postoperative complications]).

RESULTS

There were 233 patients in each group after matching (SOT and non-SOT). The mean ± SD age at the prosthesis procedure was 59.7 ± 9.89 years, and 44% of patients were White (P > .05). There was no significant difference for incidence of intra- and perioperative complications (2.62% vs 2.19%, P = .76). The SOT group did not have a higher 10-year incidence of complex complications (30.58% vs 27.51%, P = .11) or mechanical malfunction (10.35% vs 11.62%, P = .25) when compared with the non-SOT group. No difference was found for other prosthetic-related complications (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

In our analysis, patients with a SOT were not more likely to experience long-term complications related to PP. Surgeons performing PP surgery in the SOT population may consider this procedure a potentially safe and viable option for restoring erectile function.

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.

Midline submuscular penile prosthesis reservoir placement for patients with bilateral inaccessible inguinal rings: technique and outcomes

Introduction

One of the most challenging aspects of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery is reservoir placement. The traditional space of Retzius (SOR) is not suitable for all patients. For example, radical cystectomy or prostatectomy may alter the anatomical SOR. Hence, traditional placement of the reservoir in this space increases the risk of bowel or vascular injury. Also, patients with bilateral inguinal hernias repaired with mesh, or those with previous reservoirs that have been retained, are not eligible for a Retzius reservoir. Our study reports on the use of midline sub-rectus muscle placement of a penile prosthesis reservoir in these patients as an alternative to high submuscular placement commonly used.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of male patients who underwent IPP surgery between June 2017 and 2021 was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups based on the location of the reservoir: SOR versus Midline Submuscular Reservoir (MSMR). Complication rates were compared, including herniated reservoirs, infections, bowel injuries, and vascular injuries.

Results

Our cohort included 461 patients who underwent IPP surgery between June 2017 and 2021 in one tertiary center. SOR was used in 89% of patients and MSMR in 11% of patients (n = 413 and 48, respectively). Median follow-up for all patients was 28 months. The mean age was 67 ± 8 years. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding age or comorbidities (BMI, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and coronary artery disease). The complication rate was low in both the SOR and MSMR groups, with device malfunction being the most common (2% versus 4%, respectively; p = 0.32). The infection rate was 0.5% in the SOR group with no infections in the MSMR group (NS). There was only one case of herniation requiring surgical revision in the SOR group and no cases of bowel or vascular injury.

Conclusion

Placement of a penile prosthesis reservoir within a midline rectus submuscular space is a safe and effective technique when the SOR is compromised by previous surgery or bilateral inguinal canals are not accessible.

Abdominal vs sub-inguinal placement of pressure regulating balloon for artificial urinary sphincter

OBJECTIVES

To compare peri- and postoperative outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion using an abdominal versus a sub-inguinal counterincision for pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of all AUS placements by a single surgeon from 2010-2020. Demographic, clinical, and surgical details were obtained from chart review. The cohorts were divided by PRB placement technique (sub-inguinal, abdominal, and attempted sub-inguinal converted intra-operatively to abdominal ["conversion group"]).

RESULTS

There were 182 AUS devices placed. The sub-inguinal approach was successfully completed in 132/144 (92%) and converted to high abdominal PRB placement in 12/144 (8.3%). The risk of conversion was not increased by prior laparoscopically-assisted robotic prostatectomy (LRP) or radiotherapy (RT). Median operative time was 62, 75, and 77 minutes for sub-inguinal, abdominal, and conversion groups, respectively (p=0.30). Time to device activation was 25.0, 32.0, and 37.5 days for abdominal, sub-inguinal, and conversion groups, respectively (p<0.01). There were no bowel or bladder injuries and no PRB herniation in any group; however, there were five instances of pump migration superiorly, all in the sub-inguinal or conversion groups (p=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The sub-inguinal approach to PRB placement during AUS is safe and can be successfully completed over 90% of the time. However, it is not faster than the abdominal approach to PRB placement and it is associated with an increased risk of pump migration, though the latter may be confounded by the sub-dartos pouch for pump placement that was used in all sub-inguinal cases.

Practical Considerations in Inflatable Penile Implant Surgery

BACKGROUND

Penile prosthesis implantation remains an effective solution for men with medical-refractory erectile dysfunction (ED) following radical pelvic surgery. Despite the distortion of pelvic anatomy, a penile implant can be performed with excellent clinical outcomes provided strict patient selection, proper preoperative workup and safe surgical principles are adhered to.

AIM

To provide practical recommendations on inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation in patients with medical-refractory ED, with an emphasis on patient selection and counselling, preoperative workup as well as surgical considerations to minimize intraoperative complications.

METHODS

A Medline search on relevant English-only articles on penile prostheses and pelvic surgery was undertaken and the following terms were included in the search for articles of interest: "bladder cancer", "prostate cancer", "rectal cancer", "pelvic surgery" and "inflatable penile implant".

OUTCOMES

Clinical key recommendations on patient selection, preoperative workup and surgical principles.

RESULTS

Patients should be made aware of the mechanics of IPP and the informed consent process should outline the benefits and disadvantages of IPP surgery, alternative treatment options, cost, potential prosthetic complications and patient's expectations on clinical outcomes. Specialised diagnostic test for workup for ED is often not necessary although preoperative workup should include screening for active infection and optimising pre-existing medical comorbidities. Precautionary measures should be carried out to minimise infective complication. Corporal dilation and reservoir placement can be challenging in this group, and surgeons may require knowledge of advanced reconstructive surgical techniques when dealing with specific cases such as coexisting Peyronie's disease and continence issue.

CLINICAL TRANSLATION

Strict patient selection and counselling process coupled with safe surgical principles are important to achieve excellent linical outcomes and patient satisfaction rates.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This masterclass paper provides an overview of the practical considerations for men who are undergoing IPP surgery following radical pelvic surgery. Limitations include the lack of highquality data and detailed surgical description on each surgical troubleshooting steps for various prosthetic-related complications.

CONCLUSION

The IPP implantation can be performed efficiently and safely in patients following radical pelvic surgery. Chung E, Mulhall J. Practical Considerations in Inflatable Penile Implant Surgery. J Sex Med 2021;18:1320-1327.