“Stiction Syndrome”: Non-Operative Management of Patients With Difficult AMS 700 Series Inflation

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.

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.

Mechanical indications for inflatable penile prosthesis revision: analysis and implications for revision surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite technical advancements, inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) are inherently at risk of mechanical failure given their nature as hydraulic devices.

AIM

To characterize IPP component failure location at the time of device revision and stratify by manufacturer: American Medical Systems (Boston Scientific [BSCI]) and Coloplast (CP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of penile prosthesis cases from July 2007 to May 2022 was conducted, identifying men who underwent revision surgery. Cases were excluded if documentation did not denote the cause of failure or the manufacturer. Mechanical indications for surgery were categorized by location (eg, tubing, cylinder, or reservoir leak; pump malfunction). Nonmechanical revisions were excluded (component herniation, erosion, or crossover). Categorical variables were assessed with Fisher exact or chi-square analysis; Student t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for continuous variables.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes included specific location of IPP mechanical failure among BSCI and CP devices and time to mechanical failure.

RESULTS

We identified 276 revision procedures, 68 of which met inclusion criteria (46 BSCI and 22 CP). Revised CP devices were longer than BSCI devices (median cylinder length, 20 vs 18 cm; P < .001). Log-rank analysis revealed a similar time to mechanical failure between brands (P = .096). CP devices failed most often due to tubing fracture (19/22, 83%). BSCI devices had no predominant site of failure. Between manufacturers, tubing failure was more common in CP devices (19/22 vs 15/46 for BSCI, P < .001), while cylinder failure was more common among BSCI devices (10/46 vs 0/22 for CP, P = .026).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The distribution of mechanical failure is significantly different between BSCI and CP devices; this has implications regarding the approach to revision surgery.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This is the first study to directly compare when and where mechanical failure occurs in IPPs and to compare the 2 main manufacturers head-to-head. This study would be strengthened by being repeated in a multi-institutional fashion to provide more robust and objective evaluation.

CONCLUSION

CP devices commonly failed at the tubing and rarely elsewhere, while BSCI devices showed no predominant failure site; these findings may inform decision making regarding revision surgery.

Technological Advances in Penile Implant Surgery

BACKGROUND

During the last century, surgical management of erectile dysfunction has evolved from an experimental concept to a core treatment modality with widespread use among the men's health community. Over time, innovations in materials, mechanical design elements, device coatings, and surgical technique have provided patients with low-risk, reliable, and reproducible erectile function with high satisfaction rates.

AIM

To provide a foundation for future innovation by improving understanding of historical penile prosthetics and the rationale behind incremental technological improvements for the contemporary Men's Health physician.

METHODS

Literature review was conducted to generate a comprehensive review of historical technological innovations in penile implant surgery. Companies with FDA approved penile prosthetics in use in the United States were contacted for information regarding technological innovations in the past and future devices in development. A separate literature review was performed to identify any significant future device design elements being tested, even in the ex vivo setting, which may have future clinical applications.

OUTCOMES

Technological innovations in penile implant surgery were described.

RESULTS

Current options for the prosthetic surgeon include malleable penile prostheses (MPP), self-contained (2-piece) inflatable penile prostheses, and multicomponent (3-piece) inflatable penile prostheses. Current MPPs consist of a synthetic coated solid core which allow for manipulation of the penis for concealability while maintaining sufficient axial rigidity to achieve penetration when desired. Multi-component (3-Piece) IPPs currently include the Coloplast Titan and Boston Scientific/AMS 700 which consist of a fluid reservoir, intrascrotal pump, and intracavernosal cylinders. The devices have undergone numerous design updates to the cylinders, pump, reservoir, tubing, and external coatings to increase reliability and decrease short- and long-term complications.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Future innovations in penile prosthetic surgery seek to broaden the indications and applicability to the transgender community and improve both safety and functionality for patient and partner.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

The review is limited primarily to penile prosthetics approved for current or historical clinical use in the United States and may not be representative of the global prosthetic environment. Additionally, the research and development of future innovations, particularly those provided by device manufacturers, is likely limited by non-disclosure to maintain a competitive advantage.

CONCLUSIONS

Penile prosthetic surgery will undoubtedly remain integral to the treatment of erectile dysfunction, and education regarding the current state of technological innovation will empower the prosthetic surgeon and biomedical engineering community to improve contemporary patient care and drive the development of the next generation of implantable penile prosthetics. Barnard JT, Cakir OO, Ralph D, et al. Technological Advances in Penile Implant Surgery. J Sex Med 2021;18:1158-1166.

"Pumpology": the Realistic Issues Associated with Pump Placement in Prosthetic Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper was to discuss the issues and/or overt complications associated with the 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (3-IPP) pump. We also addressed how to resolve such issues with or without surgical intervention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous modifications of the 3-IPP pump have been introduced with multiple techniques to place the pump. These are largely dependent on the approach to place the 3-IPP. Pump issues may inevitably occur, and there are numerous special maneuvers that can be performed to resolve pump issues. It is important for urologists to know maneuvers for pump malfunctions to prevent unnecessary surgical procedures and pump revision. Several studies are reviewed regarding pump issues and patient satisfaction; however, a more structured prospective research project is warranted to further evaluate these issues.

Fundamentals of prosthetic urology

The field of prosthetic urology demonstrates the striking impact that simple devices can have on quality of life. Penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter implantation are the cornerstone procedures on which this specialty focuses. Modern research largely concentrates on decreasing the rates of complication and infection, as the current devices offer superior rates of satisfaction when revision is not necessary. These techniques are also able to salvage sexual function and continence in more difficult patient populations including female-to-male transgender individuals, those with ischemic priapism, and those with erectile dysfunction and incontinence secondary to prostatectomy. This review summarizes modern techniques, outcomes, and complications in the field of prosthetic urology.

Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: Considerations in Revision Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an evidence based discussion of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors that lead to successful outcomes in penile prosthesis surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the preoperative period, careful patient selection, appropriate counseling, thorough evaluation, and sufficient time for physical and emotional adaptation to an inflatable penile prosthesis are the key. During surgery, the entire device should be explanted whenever possible. A drain and retain strategy for the reservoir is a safe alternative in situation where the reservoir is not easily removable. The mechanical cleansing of lavage is more important than chemical sterilization. Postoperative instructions should be made clear and nursing phone calls may reduce the number of ER visits. Careful preoperative counseling, attention to intraoperative details, and vigilance in the postoperative period are necessary for a successful outcome with penile prosthesis revision surgery.