3-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement Following Radical Cystoprostatectomy and Urinary Diversion: Technique and Outcomes

Immediate and Long-term Outcomes of Lateral Retroperitoneal Pressure Regulating Balloon Placement During Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation

OBJECTIVE

To describe immediate and long-term outcomes of pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement, exchange, and extraction from the lateral retroperitoneum (LR) in male patients receiving an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent primary AUS placement between 2006 and 2021. All patients had the PRB placed in the LR during the study period. Intraoperative complications during PRB placement, exchange, or removal, and indications for PRB revision, such as infection, erosion, or mechanical failures were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-one patients were included in the study. All patients underwent primary implantation with no intraoperative complications including no incidents of bowel or vascular injury during PRB placement. In addition, there were no instances of intraoperative injury during PRB removal (with or without PRB replacement). After mean follow-up of 54.8months (range: 1-181months), 9 patients (1.7%) developed a reservoir-specific complication with infection (5 patients, 0.9%) being the most common issue found. The second most common type or reservoir issue was a palpable or herniated reservoir. There were 2 patients (0.4%) who herniated their reservoirs and one patient with a nonbothersome, but palpable reservoir. Lastly, there were 2 incidents (0.4%) of mechanical failure caused by a leak in the PRB.

CONCLUSION

Due to the ease and safety of placing and removing PRBs from this location and exceedingly low rates of PRB-related complications in long-term follow-up, the LR should be considered as an ideal location for PRB placement in male patients receiving an AUS.

Outcomes of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis following Radical Cystectomy - A matched Cohort Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of inflatable-penile-prosthesis (IPP) implantation after radical-cystectomy compared with other etiologies of erectile dysfunction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All inflatable penile prostheses within the past 20 years in a large regional health system were reviewed, and erectile dysfunction etiology was determined as radical-cystectomy, radical-prostatectomy, or organic/other ED. Cohorts were generated by 1:3 propensity score match using age, body mass index, and diabetes status. Baseline demographics and relevant comorbidities were evaluated. Clavien-Dindo complications, grade, and reoperation were assessed. Multivariable logarithmic regression was used to identify the predictors of 90-day complications following IPP implantation. Log-rank analysis was used to assess the time-to-reoperation after IPP implantation in patients with a history of cystectomy compared with non-cystectomy etiologies.

RESULTS

Of 2600 patients, 231 subjects were included in the study. Comparing patients undergoing IPP for cystectomy vs. pooled non-cystectomy indications, those who underwent radical-cystectomy had a higher overall complication rate(24% vs. 9%, p=0.02). Clavien-Dindo complication grades did not differ across groups. Reoperation was significantly more common following cystectomy (cystectomy: 21% vs. non-cystectomy: 7%, p=0.01), however time to reoperation did not differ significantly by indication (cystectomy: 8 years vs non-cystectomy: 10 years, p=0.09). Among cystectomy patients, 85% of reoperations were due to mechanical failure.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other erectile dysfunction etiologies, patients undergoing IPP with a history of cystectomy have an increased risk of complications within 90-days of implantation and need for surgical device revision, but no greater risk for high-grade complications. Overall IPP remains a valid treatment option after cystectomy.

Increasing role of counterincision for high submuscular penile prosthesis reservoir placement

Background

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoir placement into the high submuscular (HSM) space is safe and well tolerated. Recent studies have proposed that reservoirs placed via an abdominal counterincision (CI) may offer more precise and durable positioning as compared with a transinguinal (TI) approach.

Aim

Herein we compare the CI-HSM and TI-HSM techniques with respect to operative time, pain control, and postoperative complications.

Methods

We reviewed our penile prosthesis database at a large single-surgeon tertiary referral center from 2014 to 2021 to compare those who underwent virgin reservoir placement via the CI-HSM technique vs the TI-HSM technique. Statistical analysis was performed with the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi-square test and Fisher exact test for discrete variables.

Outcomes

Operative time, postoperative complications, morphine milligram equivalents prescribed, and postoperative correspondence were compared between patients undergoing the CI-HSM and TI-HSM techniques.

Results

Among 456 virgin IPP implants, the CI-HSM technique was used in 34 cases (7.5%) and the TI-HSM technique in 422 cases (92.5%). Of these 456 cases, 92 (20.2%) were combined with ancillary procedures such as artificial urinary sphincter, urethral sling, or penile plication (6/34, CI; 86/422, TI). Cases employing the CI-HSM technique had a 19.9% greater median operative time: 81.5 minutes (IQR, 69.3-106.5) vs 68 minutes (IQR, 57.8-80.3; P < .01). A similar proportion of patients in the CI-HSM group (2/34, 5.9%) were treated for infection as in the TI-HSM group (17/422, 4.0%; P = .64). Reservoir herniation was seen in 12 patients in the TI-HSM group (2.8%) and in none of the CI-HSM group, but this did not reach significance (P > .99). No differences were identified between patients in the TI-HSM and CI-HSM groups with regard to postoperative morphine milligram equivalents prescribed, narcotic medication refills, or postoperative correspondence.

Clinical Implications

CI-HSM reservoir placement was associated with similar surgical outcomes to TI-HSM without increased infection risk or need for narcotic pain management.

Strengths and Limitations

Although this study is a large contemporary series addressing a clinically important subject, it is limited by its retrospective preliminary nature and nonrandomized unmatched design. Patient pain regimens were assessed via discharge prescriptions, although data regarding narcotic consumption were not available in the medical record.

Conclusions

IPP reservoir placement via the CI-HSM technique is safe and well tolerated. Increased operative time of the CI-HSM technique as compared with the TI-HSM technique is clinically negligible given its potential safety benefits of direct visualization of reservoir placement.

Safety and Efficacy of Inflatable Penile Prostheses for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: Evidence to Date

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common problem, and prevalence rates are expected to rise as life expectancy increases worldwide. In more severe cases of ED, penile prosthesis implantation has been an excellent option for patients. Over the past few decades, significant design improvements have been made to the penile prosthesis and modifications to surgical technique to improve clinical outcomes. The purpose of this review is to summarize the safety and efficacy of FDA-approved penile implants in the US market. Design modifications have greatly improved the safety and reliability of the implant. Development of improved surgical techniques has decreased intraoperative injuries and reservoir-related complications. With its high overall satisfaction rates and low risk of complications, the inflatable penile prosthesis remains an excellent option for patients with erectile dysfunction.

Direct Vision, Transfascial (DVT) Approach to Submuscular Reservoir Placement in Patients Undergoing Multicomponent Penile Implant Surgery Following Prior Pelvic Surgery or Radiation Therapy

BACKGROUND

Submuscular reservoir placement has fulfilled a critical need for patients desiring multicomponent penile implants following pelvic surgery and radiation therapy. Passage of the reservoir through the inguinal canal into the submuscular space is often challenging and carries the risk of the reservoir being placed unknowingly outside of the targeted space.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and accuracy of a direct vision, transfascial (DVT) approach to submuscular reservoir placement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed outcomes for consecutive patients undergoing DVT submuscular reservoir placement abstracted from a large IRB-approved database at our institution. Postimplant cross-sectional imaging performed on many of these patients was used to ascertain the final location of the reservoir.

OUTCOMES

Outcome measures included the perioperative and intermediate-term safety and complications of the procedure. Postimplant imaging ascertained the accuracy in providing patients with a submuscular reservoir.

RESULTS

There were 107 DVT submuscular reservoirs placed in 100 consecutive patients. No intraoperative complications occurred, there were no postoperative rectus hematomas, and there were 4 (3.7%) postoperative infections. With a mean follow up of 17.5 +/- 20.5 months there was one reservoir herniation, one patient had autoinflation, and one patient required repositioning of a high riding pump. There were 4 mechanical malfunctions requiring revision at a median of 74 months (range: 69-108 months.) following implant placement. Of the 43 patients who underwent imaging: 34 (79%) reservoirs were accurately positioned, 5 (12%) were in the lateral abdominal wall, 1(2%) was in the retroperitoneum, and 3 (7%) were intraperitoneal. Intraperitoneal reservoirs occurred exclusively in postcystectomy patients.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The DVT approach is technically safe, although a slightly higher than expected infection risk was noted. It provides accurate reservoir placement for the majority of imaged patients. Postcystectomy patients have a risk of insidious intraperitoneal reservoir placement. Preoperative counseling should mention this and postimplant imaging may be considered for some of these patients. Imaging may also helpful prior to future revision surgery in order to identify and remove insidious intraperitoneal reservoirs.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

We investigated 100 patients, almost half underwent cross sectional imaging. Weaknesses include the retrospective nature of this single-institutional study, which may not have similar outcomes at other centers.

CONCLUSION

DVT submuscular reservoir placement is safe following pelvic surgery and radiation therapy. Despite careful and deliberate surgical technique imaging found that approximately 20% of reservoirs are not in their expected location. Intraperitoneal reservoirs are of concern, particularly in postcystectomy patients. Kava BR, Levine A, Hauser N, et al. Direct Vision, Transfascial (DVT) Approach to Submuscular Reservoir Placement in Patients Undergoing Multicomponent Penile Implant Surgery Following Prior Pelvic Surgery or Radiation Therapy. J Sex Med 2021;XX:XXX-XXX.

MRI of Penile Prostheses: The Challenge of Diagnosing Postsurgical Complications

Penile implants are surgically inserted devices used for the treatment of erectile disfunction. Improvements in surgical techniques and in the manufacturing of these implants have reduced the risk of intra- and postoperative complications and increased the popularity and use of this therapeutic option. Routine imaging is not recommended before penile prosthesis surgery. Malleable penile prostheses use noninflatable shafts inserted into each corpus cavernosum, which appear hypointense on T1- and T2-weighted MR images. Inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) may consist of two or three parts and are composed of two cylinders inserted into the corpora cavernosa that are filled with a saline solution to produce rigidity. These appear homogeneously T2 hyperintense and the silicone-based covering of the cylinders appears T2 hypointense, thereby clearly delineating the cylinders. In the case of three-piece IPPs, a reservoir containing the fluid may be placed in the pelvis. The most frequent complications are related to infection and mechanical failure, the latter being more common in IPPs because more components are involved. Less common complications include malpositioning. Detection and management of postoperative complications are challenging, and MRI plays a crucial role as it permits evaluation of the positioning and configuration of the prosthesis components, as well as assists in functional evaluation of IPPs when images are obtained of both the flaccid and inflated states. ^©RSNA, 2021.

Penile implant infection factors: a contemporary narrative review of literature

Objective

We aim to review and summarize published literature that features implanted penile devices and details infection of these devices as a complication. In particular, we will detail the factors that influence infection of penile implants.

Background

Types of penile prostheses (PP) include inflatable implants and semirigid implants; these are utilized for treatment of erectile dysfunction. Likely the most feared complication of penile implants is infection. There are a handful of factors that are implicated in device infection.

Methods

Searches were performed using MEDLINE and PubMed databases using keywords and phrases ‘penile implant AND infection’; ‘penile prosthesis AND infection’; ‘penile implant infection’. We have presented results from our literature search. We divided these into ‘Surgical Elements’ and ‘Patient Selection and Factors.’ Each topic is discussed in its own section.

Conclusions

Strides have been made since the initial penile prosthesis (IPP) surgeries to improve infection rates including diabetes control, antibiotic coating of devices, and antibiotic implementation. Going forward, more studies, especially randomized control trials, need to focus on defining levels of diabetic control (sugar control and A1C control), determining the role of metabolic syndrome in infection promotion and determining laboratory values which could be predictive of infection. We present a discussion of important factors to consider in the realm of PP infections. In addition, we include studies which discuss topics for future directions in decreasing the number of infections seen with PP.

Patient Reported Sexual Function Outcomes in Male Patients Following Open Radical Cystoprostatectomy and Urinary Diversion

OBJECTIVE

To report sexual health outcomes in male patients undergoing open radical cystoprostatectomy using a validated questionnaire.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Beginning in 2017, male patients were asked to complete a validated questionnaire during scheduled post-cystectomy clinic visits that assessed sexual function using the 5 item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and supplemental questions which evaluated libido, orgasm, partner interest, and adequacy of pre-operative counselling. Baseline data and functional outcomes were compared and multivariable analysis performed.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients who met inclusion criteria completed the questionnaire. Pre-operative IIEF-5 was available in 78 patients with a median score of 16 (IQR:5-23). In those patients, median age at cystectomy was 68.9 years (IQR:60.2-72.4) and median duration of follow-up was 17.3 months (IQR:6.3-28.7). Median IIEF-5 score at time of survey completion was 1 (IQR:1-11). Increasing age, shorter follow-up duration, insufficient counselling, and absence of partner interest were predictive of lower scores. Younger age, pre-operative erectile function, and neurovascular preservation were predictive of a higher IIEF-5 score on univariate and multivariate analysis. Median libido score was 2 "low" (IQR:1-3) and ability to orgasm was reported by 34 (43.6%) patients. Neurovascular preservation (OR:3.03 95% CI:1.10-8.26, P = .03) and sufficient preoperative counselling (OR:3.078 95% CI:1.17-8.098, P = .02) were associated with preserved ability to orgasm. Libido was influenced by partner interest (OR 11.7, 95% CI:3.793-6.14, P <.0001).

CONCLUSION

Sexual dysfunction after radical cystoprostatectomy is prevalent with many contributing factors. As such, establishing appropriate expectations and goals during preoperative counseling, performing neurovascular preservation when appropriate, and readily identifying and treating dysfunction in follow-up may improve sexual recovery.

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.

Robotic radical cystectomy with concomitant implantation of 3-piece penile prosthesis: a one-step solution

Radical cystectomy (RC) remains a highly morbid urologic procedure, and erectile dysfunction (ED) represents a significant burden for bladder cancer survivors. While inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) offers a definitive treatment option for post-RC ED, the hostile postoperative anatomy of RC patients poses some technical challenges for IPP implantation. We report the case of a 54-year-old male with high grade bladder cancer who was managed with a robotic-assisted RC with Bricker ileal conduit urinary diversion and simultaneous implantation of a 3-piece IPP. Operative time was 310 min (230 min for the RC and ileal conduit portion, 80 min for IPP implantation). Estimated blood loss was 300 ml. Postoperative course was regular. The patient was discharged home on postoperative day 6. A robotic RC with concomitant IPP implantation can be offered as “one-step” solution to bladder cancer male patients. This approach can potentially offer the advantage of better outcome in terms of sexual function, while minimizing surgical risks, ultimately improving the quality of life of these patients.

Effect of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis combined with a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor on erectile dysfunction

Objective

To investigate the therapeutic effect of implanting a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) combined with the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil in severe erectile dysfunction (ED) patients.

Methods

This randomized controlled study included 123 ED patients. Sixty-two patients received the IPP implantation and 61 patients received the IPP implantation and the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil. Erectile function and sexual life quality were evaluated using the five-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and modified Sexual Life Quality Questionnaire–Quality of Life domain (mSLQQ-QoL), respectively. Serum interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, vascular cell adhesion molecule (VCAM)-1, and intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM)-1 levels were assessed. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to assess the overall IPP survival.

Results

Implantation of the three-piece IPP with sildenafil improved erectile function and sexual life quality, alleviated the inflammatory response, reduced the complication rate, and improved overall IPP survival.

Conclusion

Implantation of the three-piece IPP combined with a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor significantly improved clinical outcomes and the prognosis in ED patients.

Outcomes of Alternative Reservoir Placement in the Lateral Retroperitoneum During Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement

OBJECTIVES

To describe outcomes of reservoir placement, exchange, and extraction from the lateral retroperitoneum (LR) in complex patients with a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent placement of an IPP from 2009 to 2019. Patients with placement of the reservoir in the LR were identified. Intraoperative complications during reservoir placement, exchange, or removal, reservoir-related outcomes, and secondary device-related outcomes were collated and compared to patients who underwent traditional Space of Retzius reservoir placement.

RESULTS

A total of 587 men underwent primary IPP placement with 321 patients undergoing reservoir placement in the SOR and 266 in the LR. No significant differences were found in intra-operative reservoir-related outcomes (P=.272) between the 2 groups during placement, replacement, or extraction. Bowel injury occurred in 1 patient in the LR group during placement. No significant differences were found in postoperative reservoir complications (P= .534). Both groups each had one instance of patient reported bulge and pain at reservoir site (P= .6777). Two (0.6%) patients in the SOR group and 3 (1.1%) patients in the LR group had a reservoir failure or leak. There was a trend towards a lower rate of device infections in the LR group (1.9%) compared to the SOR group (4.7%) (P= .063). There were no significant differences in overall device mechanical failure rates between both groups (P= .919).

CONCLUSIONS

Reservoir placement in the LR is safe in patients with complex pelvic anatomy with equivalent device durability and no difference in surgical outcomes compared to standard retropubic reservoir placement.

Counter incision is a safe and effective method for alternative reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis surgery

Background

Alternative reservoir placement is increasingly popular during inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery to prevent intraperitoneal positioning, bowel, bladder, or vascular injury in patients with prior pelvic surgeries. Counter incision (CI) can be used for submuscular reservoir placement in high risk patients, however series exploring the safety remain limited.

Methods

A database of IPP surgeries was queried for use of a CI during reservoir placement to compare 90-day clinical outcomes in a retrospective case-control study. Primary outcome was device infections, with secondary outcomes including reservoir herniation, hematoma, device malfunction rates, and operative times. Groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-Squared tests, with multivariate logistic regression models to identify predictors of infectious complications.

Results

A total of 534 cases met criteria, of which 51 (9.6%) used a CI for reservoir placement. The CI cohort included significantly more removal and replacements, 45.1% vs. 20.9% (P<0.001). Thirty-one CI patients (61.0%) had undergone prior prostatectomy compared to 134 (27.7%) non-CI patients (P=0.001). The most common reasons for CI were prior prostatectomy and inguinal hernia repair. Median operative time was 17 minutes longer in the CI group (74 vs. 57 minutes, P<0.001). Device infection rates were similar (2.0% vs. 4.1%, P=0.71), as were rates of hematoma (5.9% vs. 2.7%, P=0.19), and device malfunction (0.0% vs. 1.4% P=1.00).

Conclusions

Complication rates were similar between CI and non-CI cohorts, even in a subset where approximately half the cases were removal and replacements. For physicians not comfortable with alternative placement through a penoscrotal or infrapubic incision, this offers a reasonable alternative and permits use of three-piece devices in patients with a hostile pelvis.

Risk profiling in patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation

Penile prosthesis implantation is the gold standard of surgical therapy for patients with medication-refractory erectile dysfunction. However, this umbrella definition includes significant heterogeneity and associated risk profiles that should be candidly discussed and addressed perioperatively. Factors associated with operative success and patient satisfaction are often surgery specific; however, risk profiling via patient selection, preoperative optimization, proper device selection, and intraoperative consideration are highly correlated. Some examples of common risk profiles include comorbidity(ies) such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, prior abdominal surgery, Peyronie's disease, and psychological risk factors. Similarly, integration of surgeon- and patient-amenable characteristics is key to decreasing risk of infection, complication, and need for revision. Finally, patient risk profiling provides a unique context for proper device selection and evidence-based intraoperative considerations.

Three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis: Ectopic reservoir placement

INTRODUCTION

The complications associated to the placement of the reservoir are infrequent but potentially serious. Therefore, technical alternatives have been developed for the performance of the procedure in different locations (ectopic). The aim of this review is to revise the evidence available on the different options for the ectopic placement of the reservoir.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Narrative review based on a bibliographical search limited to PubMed- indexed relevant manuscripts, in Spanish or English, for the period 2000-2019, using «penile prosthesis», «ectopic reservoir», radical prostatectomy», «radical cystectomy», «pelvic radiotherapy», and «renal transplantation» as key words. Non original articles and reviews were not considered eligible. A total of 11 manuscripts were included.

RESULTS

Pelvic alterations after surgery and/or radiotherapy increase the difficulty in the placement of the prosthesis reservoir. In order to minimize the risk of complications, different modifications have been performed on the devices, and technical innovations have been developed for the submuscular placement of the reservoir. The available evidence regarding the functionality and complications of these techniques is limited to single institution, low volume, and retrospective series with short follow-up periods. The functionality seems to be adequate using the adapted devices. The complications are infrequent and mild in severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the available evidence is still limited, the ectopic placement of the reservoir may be considered a safe, effective, and reproducible technique. In addition, it may result particularly useful in cases of altered pelvic anatomy.

Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with infection in patients who undergo penile prosthesis implantation.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review/meta-analysis, including clinical trials, quasi-experiments, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and case-control studies. Searching was done in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. Participants were patients who had erectile dysfunction, regardless of the etiology, and underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Two researchers reviewed each reference by title and abstract. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan® 5.3).

RESULTS

A total of 513 studies were found with the search strategies. After excluding duplicates, 40 studies with a total of 175,592 patients were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among patient characteristics, we found that diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression appear to have increase odds of infection. Related to the procedure, infection-retardant-coated penile prosthesis and primary (first) surgery appear to lower odds of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression were associated with increased infection rates; infection-retardant coating of the prosthesis and primary surgery were associated with reduced infection rates.

Penile Prosthesis Infection: Myths and Realities

Penile prosthesis infection is the most significant complication following prosthesis implant surgery leading to postoperative morbidity, increased health care costs, and psychological stress for the patient. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with increased postoperative penile prosthesis infection. A review of the literature was performed via PubMed using search terms including inflatable penile prosthesis, penile implant, and infection. Articles were given a level of evidence score using the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Guidelines. Multiple factors were associated with increased risk of post-prosthesis placement infection (Level of Evidence Rating) including smoking tobacco (Level 1), CD4 T-cell count <300 (Level 4), Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage (Level 2), revision surgery (Level 2), prior spinal cord injury (Level 3), and hemoglobin A1c level >8.5 (Level 2). Factors with no effect on infection rate include: preoperative cleansing with antiseptic (Level 4), history of prior radiation (Level 3), history of urinary diversion (Level 4), obesity (Level 3), concomitant circumcision (Level 3), immunosuppression (Level 4), age >75 (Level 4), type of hand cleansing (Level 1), post-surgical drain placement (Level 3), and surgical approach (Level 4). Factors associated with decreased rates of infection included: surgeon experience (Level 2), "No Touch" technique (Level 3), preoperative parenteral antibiotics (Level 2), antibiotic coated devices (Level 2), and operative field hair removal with clippers (Level 1). Optimization of pre-surgical and intraoperative risk factors is imperative to reduce the rate of postoperative penile prosthesis infection. Additional research is needed to elucidate risk factors and maximize benefit.

Penile Implant Considerations in the Bladder Cancer Survivor

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

After radical cystoprostatectomy, patients often develop erectile dysfunction refractory to first- and second-line treatments. In this review, we summarize and analyze the literature describing the technical considerations and outcomes of penile implant surgery in bladder cancer patients with history of radical cystectomy and urinary diversion.

RECENT FINDINGS

Penile prosthesis surgery in patients after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion has been infrequently described in the literature. Recent studies have shown that the three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis can be placed safely after significant prior intraabdominal surgery due to the development and refinement of several techniques to place the reservoir. Further studies are needed to objectively determine the impact of penile prosthetic surgery on functional outcomes in this historically undertreated yet increasingly significant patient population. As health-related quality of life outcomes continue to gain increasing importance after radical cystectomy, urologists should offer motivated bladder cancer survivors the inflatable penile prosthesis as the treatment of choice for refractory erectile dysfunction due to its safety and unmatched ability to restore erectile function.

Dual Prosthetic Implantation After Radical Cystoprostatectomy and Neobladder: Outcomes of the Inflatable Penile Prosthesis and Artificial Urinary Sphincter in Bladder Cancer Survivors

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of radical cystectomy and orthotopic neobladder (NB) diversion on device-related outcomes in patients who undergo subsequent placement of both, an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using an institutional prosthetic database, we identified 39 patients who underwent radical cystectomy and NB and subsequent implantation of both prosthetic devices from 2003 to 2017. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes including prosthetic infection, mechanical failure, revision surgery, and functional outcomes were examined and compared to an appropriate matched group of patients (n = 48, non-neobladder group).

RESULTS

No intraoperative complications were observed. After median follow-up of 94 months (12-177 months), 1 patient developed an infection of their penile prosthesis and 4 patients developed an erosion of their AUS. In each case, the infection did not involve the other device. Two patients required revision surgery of their penile prosthesis due to mechanical failure (reservoir leak, n = 1; cylinder aneurysm, n = 1). Twenty-one patients underwent elective revision surgery to improve continence (cuff downsizing, n = 18; pressure-regulating balloon exchange, n = 3). There were 6 cases of AUS mechanical failure. No reservoir-related complications such as herniation or erosion were observed. Compared to the control group of non-neobladder patients, there were no significant differences in prosthetic infection, mechanical failure, and revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

The AUS and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis can coexist safely in patients with NB without an increased risk of device-related complications.

Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement Following Pelvic Radiation: Technical Considerations and Contemporary Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Pelvic radiation is a known risk factor for the development and progression of erectile dysfunction. When medical therapy fails, the 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) can offer patients a definitive treatment option. Because of radiation-induced vascular changes and tissue fibrosis, a careful surgical approach is necessary to avoid intraoperative complications and attain successful outcomes. Despite its widespread use in prostate cancer treatment, there are no contemporary studies examining the effects that pelvic radiation can have on 3-piece IPP placement and device survival.

AIM

To present technical considerations and contemporary outcomes of placing a 3-piece IPP for refractory erectile dysfunction in patients with a history of pelvic radiation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 78 patients who underwent placement of a 3-piece IPP (AMS 700; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) after being treated with pelvic radiotherapy from 2003 through 2016. All patients had been treated with external beam and/or brachytherapy for treatment of prostate malignancy. An infrapubic approach was used in all patients, with reservoir placement in the space of Retzius or in the lateral retroperitoneal space. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes including prosthetic infection and mechanical failure were examined and statistical analysis was performed.

OUTCOMES

Rates of device infection, revision surgery, and reservoir complications.

RESULTS

No intraoperative complications were observed. After a mean follow-up of 49.0 months (6.6-116.8), 2 patients developed an infection of their prosthesis that required explantation. These patients underwent successful IPP removal and immediate reimplantation. 11 patients (14.1%) required revision surgery (pump replacement, n = 4; pump relocation, n = 2; cylinder replacement, n = 4; reservoir replacement owing to leak, n = 1). No reservoir-related complications such as herniation or erosion into adjacent structures were observed.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The 3-piece IPP can be placed safely in a broad range of patients treated with pelvic radiotherapy.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This study describes contemporary long-term outcomes of the IPP in patients treated with pelvic radiation and includes patients with prior pelvic surgery and artificial urinary sphincter, which are commonly encountered in practice. It is limited by its single-center experience and lacks a comparison group of patients. Objective patient satisfaction data were not available for inclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-piece IPP can be placed successfully in patients with a history of pelvic radiation without a significant increase in infectious complications, reservoir erosion, or mechanical failure compared with the global literature. Loh-Doyle J, Patil MB, Nakhoda Z, et al. Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement Following Pelvic Radiation: Technical Considerations and Contemporary Outcomes. J Sex Med 2018;15:1049-1054.