Implantation of the ZSI 475 FTM Erectile Device After Phalloplasty: A Prospective Analysis of Surgical Outcomes

Complication and Explantation Rates of Penile Prostheses in Transmasculine Patients: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize current literature on penile prosthesis implantation post-gender affirming phalloplasty to correlate implant types and complication rates.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of penile prosthesis in transmasculine patients was initiated in December 2022. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies reporting on penile prosthesis complications post-gender-affirming phalloplasty. Exclusion criteria were review articles, meta-analyses, studies that exclusively reported on cisgender patients or surgeries other than penile prosthesis implantation. An initial search of 5 databases yielded a total of 1593 articles. Upon screening, 15 full-text articles were eligible for inclusion. Nine studies were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate for the inflatable prosthesis group was 38% (95% CI: 21, 59) and for the malleable prosthesis group was 37% (95% CI: 18, 62). The most probable complications in the inflatable group were infection (14.5%), dysfunction (12.9%), dislocation (5.7%), and leakage (5.4%). The most probable complications in the malleable group were dislocation (14.9%), infection (11.2%), dysfunction (9.1%), and extrusion (7.6%). There was no significant difference in the probability of any complications between the malleable and inflatable prosthesis groups. The best estimate of explantation rates for any reason for the inflatable group was 19% (95% CI: 9, 38) and for the malleable group 13% (95% CI: 4, 33). There was no significant difference in the probability of any reason for explantation between the malleable and inflatable prosthesis groups.

Current devices, outcomes, and pain management considerations in penile implant surgery: an updated review of the literature

Penile prosthesis surgery is a definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). The two categories of penile prosthesis are endorsed by professional guidelines, inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and malleable penile prosthesis (MPP). Each modality of penile prosthesis offers distinct advantages and incorporates specific design features, allowing for personalized device selection that aligns with individual needs and preferences. While the overall complication rate of penile implant surgery remains low, surgeons should maintain a high index of suspicion for complications in the perioperative time period. Multimodal analgesic regimens including nerve blocks and narcotic-free pathways should be administered to manage perioperative pain. Finally, the high patient satisfaction after penile prosthesis surgery underscores the success of this ED treatment option.

50 years of inflatable penile implants: Where do we stand in France?

INTRODUCTION

With 50 years' experience, inflatable penile implants are the preferred option for erectile dysfunction refractory to pharmacological and mechanical treatment. Technical and surgical improvements have optimized patient success and satisfaction. However, multi-factorial dissatisfaction persists.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of available technological improvements and innovations, as well as the perioperative management and complications of inflatable penile implant surgery.

METHOD

A literature review was carried out over the last twenty years to answer 4 questions: what are the different inflatable penile implants available in 2023, for which indications, results and complications.

RESULTS

Four companies propose inflatable penile implants in France. The main improvements have been in the various components of the prosthesis with better cylinder extension, more ergonomic reservoirs, and more manageable pumps, leading to a better durability. Indications have been extended to patients suffering from Peyronie's disease and in emergency cases of priapism. In response to demand from the transgender population, specific phalloplasty implants have been developed. New options are being developed for difficult cases of retracted penis. Results show a high satisfaction rate. Currently the main challenge is the management of infection with the development of rescue protocols using antibiotics to preserve implants - or replace them in a single operation.

CONCLUSION

After 50years' experience, improvements in penile implants led to effective, satisfactory and safe treatment and can be proposed in new indications. Further development is sill necessary to offer solutions in difficult cases.

[Genital gender affirming surgery in trans men]

OBJECTIVE

Genital surgery for masculinisation in the context of gender incongruence is characterised by the reconstruction of male genitalia using multiple surgical techniques - free flap phalloplasty, pedicled flap phalloplasty or metaoidioplasty - which this article aims to describe.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A narrative review of the literature on these trans surgeries was carried out.

RESULTS

Each technique has specific advantages and disadvantages, and does not produce the same results in terms of surgical risks, size of the reconstructed phallus, sensitivity, sexual function and urinary function.

CONCLUSION

This surgical decision must therefore be shared with the person concerned, based on a clear understanding of their expectations and objectives. Long-term follow-up is recommended.

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.

Donor and Recipient Nerve Axon Counts in Gender-affirming Radial Forearm Phalloplasty: Informing Choice of Nerve Coaptations

A key component of success of a nerve transfer is the innervation density, which is directly affected by the donor nerve axonal density and donor-to-recipient (D:R) axon ratio. Optimal D:R axon ratio for a nerve transfer is quoted at 0.7:1 or greater. In phalloplasty surgery, there are currently minimal data available to help inform selection of donor and recipient nerves, including unavailability of axon counts.

Methods

Five transmasculine people who underwent gender-affirming radial forearm phalloplasty had nerve specimens processed with histomorphometric evaluation to determine axon counts and approximate donor-to-recipient axon ratios.

Results

Mean axon counts for recipient nerves were 6957 ± 1098 [the lateral antebrachial (LABC)], 1866 ± 590 [medial antebrachial (MABC)], and 1712 ± 121 [posterior antebrachial cutaneous (PABC)]. Mean axon counts for donor nerves were 2301 ± 551 [ilioinguinal (IL)] and 5140 ± 218 [dorsal nerve of the clitoris (DNC)]. D:R axon ratios using mean axon counts were DNC:LABC 0.739 (0.61-1.03), DNC:MABC 2.754 (1.83-5.91), DNC:PABC 3.002 (2.71-3.53), IL:LABC 0.331 (0.24-0.46), IL:MABC 1.233 (0.86-1.17), and IL:PABC 1.344 (0.85-1.82).

Conclusions

The DNC is the more powerful donor nerve with greater than two times the axon count of the IL. The IL nerve may be under-powered to re-innervate the LABC based on an axon ratio consistently less than 0.7:1. All other mean D:R are more than 0.7:1. DNC axon counts may be excessive for re-innervation of the MABC or PABC alone with D:R of more than 2.5:1, potentially increasing risk of neuroma formation at the coaptation site.

Surgical Outcomes at a Single Institution of Infrapubic Insertion of Malleable Penile Prosthesis in Transmen

OBJECTIVE

To describe our technique for the infrapubic approach for malleable penile prosthesis (MPP) insertion after phalloplasty in transgender men and review surgical outcomes.

METHODS

The infrapubic prosthesis insertion technique involves a horizontal incision anterior to the pubic symphysis, allowing dissection of the neophallus tract and anchor site on the pubic symphysis. Surgical outcomes by a single surgeon using a Spectra or Genesis MPP between October 2017 and May 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Complications were categorized into erosions, infections, device detachment, device malposition, pain or activity limitation, urethral injury, and flap loss. Implant survival kinetics were assessed by evaluating time to surgical revision.

RESULTS

Forty patients underwent infrapubic MPP insertion; 35 patients had a prior radial forearm free flap (RFFF) and 5 had a prior anterolateral thigh flap (ALT) phalloplasty. Of 30 patients who maintained follow-up, mean follow-up was 34.9 months. Complications were not mutually exclusive, with 7 implant detachments from the anchor site, 3 malpositions, 2 with pain/activity limitation, and 1 infection. Surgical revision was required in 12/30 patients (40%). There were no neophallus erosions, flap loss, nor urethral injuries. More complications occurred with the Spectra (9/17 or 53%) than the Genesis MPP (3/13 or 23%), but this was not statistically significant (P = .10).

CONCLUSION

Infrapubic insertion in transmen after phalloplasty using commercially available MPPs is safe compared with other post-phalloplasty penile prosthesis insertion techniques, with similarly high surgical revision rates. Further study of techniques is needed to improve outcomes after penile prosthesis insertion in transmen.

Insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis in the neophallus of assigned female at birth individuals: a systematic review of surgical techniques, complications and outcomes

Devices such as inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) can be used to achieve erectile rigidity after phalloplasty in assigned female at birth (AFAB) individuals. The approach to inserting an IPP in a neophallus is different and more challenging compared to that of an anatomical penis due to the absence of anatomical structures such as the corpora cavernosa, and the more tenuous blood supply of the neophallus and reconstructed urethra. In addition, the ideal surgical techniques and devices for use in the neophallus have not been defined. This review systematically summarises the literature on the insertion of IPP in the neophallus of individuals AFAB. In particular, the described techniques, types of devices used and peri-operative and patient-reported outcomes are emphasised. An initial search of the PubMed database was performed on 16 September 2022 and an updated search was performed on 26 May 2023. Overall, 185 articles were screened for eligibility and 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Two studies reported outcomes on the zephyr surgical implant 475 FTM device and the others reported outcomes on the Boston Scientific AMS 600/700TM CX 3-piece inflatable, AMS AmbicorTM 2-piece inflatable, Coloplast Titan® or Dynaflex devices. Overall, 1106 IPPs were analysed. The infection rate was 4.2%-50%, with most studies reporting an infection rate of <30%. Mechanical failure or dysfunction occurred in 1.4%-36.4%, explantation was required in 3.3%-41.6%, and implant revision or replacement was performed in 6%-70%. Overall, 51.4%-90.6% of patients were satisfied and 77%-100% were engaging in sexual intercourse. An IPP in a neophallus is an acceptable option to achieve rigidity for sexual intercourse. However, this challenging procedure has good reports of patient and partner satisfaction despite significant risks of complications.

Concerns About Internal Erectile Prostheses Among Transgender Men Who Have Undergone Phalloplasty

BACKGROUND

Transgender men who undergo gender-affirming phalloplasty have limited options for attaining sufficient rigidity for sexual penetration.

AIM

The goal of this study was to understand interest in and concerns about internal erectile prostheses among transgender men who had undergone phalloplasty.

METHODS

As part of a pilot study of an external erectile device, transgender men (n = 15) were surveyed about their interest in, and concerns about, getting an internal prosthesis. Descriptive analyses were performed for structured questions and content analysis was used to analyze open responses.

OUTCOMES

Measured outcomes included closed- and open-ended questions assessing patient attitudes about internal erectile prostheses.

RESULTS

Before starting the study, approximately half the men stated they were interested in getting an internal device, 20% said they weren't, and 33% said they didn't know. More than half of this postphalloplasty population stated they were somewhat or very concerned about the need for additional surgery (73%), side effects (pain, damage to the phallus; 100%), and the risk of device failure (100%). An additional 47% stated they were somewhat or very concerned about cost and 33% stated they were somewhat or very concerned about finding a surgeon.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

There is a need to develop appropriate alternatives to current internal prostheses for penetrative function after phalloplasty.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

Generalizability of results is limited by the fact that data are from men who had enrolled in a pilot study to test an external erectile prosthesis, and as such were explicitly interested in exploring nonsurgical alternatives to attain an erection. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data demonstrates that transgender men's concerns about internal prostheses are grounded in the current evidence.

CONCLUSION

Transgender men who have undergone phalloplasty have substantial concerns about the risks of getting an internal prosthesis and there is significant interest in alternatives to current devices. Boskey ER, Mehra G, Jolly D, et al. Concerns About Internal Erectile Prostheses Among Transgender Men Who Have Undergone Phalloplasty. J Sex Med 2022;19:1055-1059.

Options for Masculinizing Genital Gender Affirming Surgery: A Critical Review of the Literature and Perspectives for Future Directions

INTRODUCTION

Masculinizing genital gender affirmation surgery (MgGAS) has witnessed significant change in recent years. With the increasing number of patients seeking out GAS, optimization of techniques is mandated.

OBJECTIVES

To critically review the evolution of MgGAS, in a manner that encompasses the history and scope of the procedures, including phalloplasty with and without urethral lengthening, metoidioplasty with and without urethral lengthening, penile prosthesis placement, scrotoplasty, testicular prosthesis placement, vaginectomy, and hysterectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, using PubMed. For our search, we generated a comprehensive list of MgGAS, combined with synonyms for GAS to ensure that articles included transgender cohorts. We identified a total of 547 articles from the search terms. Of these articles, 144 abstracts were relevant. Among these abstracts, 108 manuscripts were reviewed in full of which 98 were acceptable for inclusion. We excluded non-English-language studies without translation and studies that did not describe primary gGAS (eg, revision surgeries).

RESULTS

The evolution of MgGAS encompasses mostly refinements of pre-existing procedures, rather than new techniques or "watershed" procedures. The literature is somewhat lacking in outcomes-reporting that identifies the specific anatomy and surgical technique(s) used during gGAS. Without clarity regarding anatomy and technique, it is not feasible to compare surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is no ideal MgGAS; thus, it is critical that the physician assist the patient in understanding the outcomes and potential morbidity of the procedures to make the most informed decision. We envision that the future of MgGAS will advance with refinement of surgical techniques that minimize complications, improvement of tissue therapeutic technologies, new surgical tools and prosthetics designed for gGAS, advances in aftercare, and an immense selection of surgical options. Walton A, Hellstrom WJG, Garcia M. Options for Masculinizing Genital Gender Affirming Surgery: A Critical Review of the Literature and Perspectives for Future Directions. Sex Med Rev 2021;9:605-618.

[Prosthetics after construction of the outer genitalia for transmen]

BACKGROUND

Growing awareness of gender identity issues and a rising prevalence of female-to-male transsexualism is increasing demand for surgical solutions that deliver both aesthetically and functionally satisfying outer genitalia for transmen.

OBJECTIVE

This article summarizes the available prosthetic options, describes different surgical approaches and reviews the outcome of prosthetics for transmen with a focus on penile prosthesis in phalloplasty.

METHODS

Current international standards of care, reviews and original publications are critically reviewed and correlated with our own experience with more than 400 transmen at two interdisciplinary referral centres in Frankfurt, Germany and London, UK.

RESULTS

Despite of a wide range of different phalloplasty techniques and prosthetic types, the currently most used technique is implantation of a three-piece, inflatable penile prosthesis in a radial-free-flap phalloplasty. There is still an ongoing debate about the number of implanted penile prosthesis cylinders, the use of customised corporoplasty-windsocks for the cylinder(s), and the location for the placement of the reservoir. At present there is only one penile prosthesis design for use in phalloplasties and long-term results are still pending.

CONCLUSION

There is still no ideal implant available for the use in phalloplasties. The current literature does not provide evidence-based treatment algorithms, which is also due to a lack of prospective randomised studies and validated measurement tools for the postoperative outcome. Initial data for the first transmen-specific penile prosthesis as well as an increase of transgender studies might lead to an improvement of treatment and the quality-of-life of the affected transmen.