National Practice Patterns of Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction with Penile Prosthesis Implantation

Society of Urologic Prosthetic Surgeons' Coding and Billing Position Statement on Ancillary/Adjunct Penile Prosthesis Surgical Procedures: Part I

OBJECTIVE

To create a society position statement on common adjunct penile prosthesis (PP) procedures. While the Medicare Current Procedural Terminology code book lists descriptions of procedures, it is very brief and lacks detail in the small subspecialty of prosthetic urology. At educational/research meetings, wide variation was found in how experts in prosthetic urology code the same procedures, and need for a standardized format in billing common ancillary surgery was voiced.

METHODS

A subcommittee within the Society of Urologic Prosthetic Surgeons developed a survey assessing coding options for several procedures commonly adjunct to PP placement, which was distributed in the fall of 2022. The results of the survey were used to develop consensus statements on coding adjunct PP procedures; statements were distributed among society membership and meetings for approval.

RESULTS

Thirty members replied to the survey; demographics were obtained as follows: 73% were trained in a fellowship, 50% identified as university/academic practitioners, and 50% in community/private practice; and 63% respondents place more than 50 implants annually. Only 1 of the 30 respondents stated confidence in coding for these ancillary procedures. Specifically, differences in how to code curvature correction procedures were observed throughout the survey results.

CONCLUSION

Only 1 in 30 prosthetic urologists expressed confidence in coding and billing of adjunct PP procedures, further confirming the need for a society position statement. Therefore, we generated a consensus society position statement on common surgeries that are adjunct to PP placement.

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.

New findings regarding the influence of assistants on surgical outcomes in penile prosthesis implantation

Penile prosthesis implantation is the definitive treatment for refractory erectile dysfunction, yet exposure to this procedure during training of urology residents is often limited. To assess the effects of resident participation in penile prosthesis surgery, we compared surgical outcomes in a retrospective case series of 253 penile prosthesis surgeries by a single surgeon at the same institution between 2017 and 2020 with the assistance of either a registered nurse first assistant (RNFA) or a resident. Pertinent patient characteristics and surgical complications including device complications, surgical site infection, postoperative bleeding, iatrogenic injury, cardiovascular events, pulmonary events, and urinary retention were documented. Measured outcomes included operative time, Emergency Room (ER) visits, unplanned postoperative visits, pain medication refills, and surgical complications. Compared to RFNAs, resident-assisted penile prosthesis surgery was associated with significant increase in mean operative time (71.4 min vs. 87.9 min, p < 0.01) and postoperative ER visits (3.0% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.03) but not surgical complications (19.7% vs. 20.8%, OR 1.03, 95% CI [0.46 -2.30]) or other measured outcomes. Compared to a dedicated RFNA, Resident assistance increased operative time by approximately 17 min, but did not increase post-operative surgical complications, supporting the notion that resident assistance in these procedures may be appropriate as an integral part of training.

Perioperative outcomes of penile prosthesis implantation in Germany: results from the GRAND study

We aimed to assess the recommended annual hospital volume for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) and to provide evidence on perioperative outcomes of semi-rigid and inflatable PPI in Germany. We used the GeRmAn Nationwide inpatient Data (GRAND) from 2005 to 2021 and report the largest study to date with 7,222 patients. 6,818 (94.4%) patients underwent inflatable and 404 (5.6%) semi-rigid PPI. Inflatable PPI was significantly associated with shorter length of hospital stay (difference of 2.2 days, 95%CI: 1.6-2.7, p < 0.001), lower odds of perioperative urinary tract infections (5.5% versus 9.2%; OR: 0.58, 95%CI: 0.41-0.84, p = 0.003) and surgical wound infections (1% versus 2.5%; OR: 0.42, 95%CI: 0.22-0.88, p = 0.012) compared to semi-rigid PPI. Overall, 4255 (62.4%) inflatable PPIs were undertaken in low- ( < 20 PPI/year) and 2563 (37.6%) in high-volume ( ≥ 20 PPI/year) centers. High-volume centers were significantly associated with shorter length of hospital stay (difference of 1.4 days, 95%CI: 1.2-1.7, p < 0.001) compared to low-volume centers. Our findings suggest that inflatable PPI leads to a shorter length of hospital stay and lower rates of perioperative urinary tract and surgical wound infections compared to semi-rigid PPI. Patients undergoing surgery in high-volume centers for inflatable PPI are discharged earlier from the hospital.

The clinical significance of imperfection: is idiopathic corporal asymmetry related to curvature during penile prosthesis placement?

Patient satisfaction after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) has been linked to preexisting curvature; however the association with intraoperative asymmetric corporal measurements (ACM) has not been well described. We sought to identify incidence of ACM during IPP surgery, and relationship to penile curvature. A retrospective review of all patients undergoing primary IPP placement between 6/2019 and 6/2021 was performed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ACM and need for adjunct straightening techniques. A total of 273 patients underwent primary IPP. 27.8% had Peyronie's disease (PD) diagnosed preoperatively or detected intraoperatively. ACM was identified in 20.1% (55/273) patients. There was no significant difference in ACM in PD versus non-PD patients (p = 0.55). Most patients with ACM (78.2%, 43/55) underwent placement of asymmetric device. ACM did not predict need for invasive straightening maneuvers (p = 0.12). However ACM patients were significantly more likely to have mild residual curvature than those with symmetry (p < 0.0001). Our study is first to address management of idiopathic ACM and association with curvature, providing new insight into a common situation. While ACM was detected in 20%, it did not predict need for adjunct straightening techniques. Our findings may provide reassurance to urologists troubleshooting idiopathic ACM during corporal dilation during IPP surgery.

The International Penile Prosthesis Implant Consensus Forum: clinical recommendations and surgical principles on the inflatable 3-piece penile prosthesis implant

Despite significant scientific advances in the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implant surgery, it is not without surgical risks and can carry additional cosmetic and psychosocial consequences in poorly selected and consented individuals. To address this problem, an international group of key opinion leaders and high-volume prosthetic surgeons reviewed the current guidelines and clinical evidence, discussed their experiences, and formed a consensus regarding inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. The findings of this consensus panel were presented at the 17th biennial Asia Pacific Society of Sexual Medicine scientific meeting. The experts concluded that proper patient selection, informed consent and strict adherence to safe surgical principles are important to optimize clinical outcomes. Furthermore, most intraoperative complications, if recognized, can be addressed intraoperatively to enable placement of the device at the time of initial surgery. Men with significant corporal fibrosis due to Peyronie's disease, prior prosthesis explantation and priapism, and men who have undergone construction of a neophallus, as well as men who receive concurrent continence surgery, are complex cases requiring additional care and advanced techniques to obtain optimal surgical outcomes. Variability in patient care - in terms of postoperative antibiotic use, pain management, scrotal care, and cycling of the penile prosthesis implant - must be reduced to enable optimization and assessment of outcomes across patient groups.

Malleable Penile Implant Rod Diameter Predicts Complications and Patient Satisfaction

Background

One of the most common complaints after malleable prosthesis implantation (MPI) is thinning of the penis and decreasing girth. Some surgeons try to insert the largest diameter they can to improve patient satisfaction

Aim

To investigate if malleable rod diameter (MRD) has an impact on outcome and patient satisfaction

Methods

Consecutive malleable prosthesis implantation (MPI) was assessed in a high-volume center over 1 year. The same preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative protocols were used for all patients and one brand of the malleable device was used only. We recorded MRD and length for all patients. All patients had data on comorbidities including glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and clinical Peyronie's disease (PD). Revision cases and those who lost for follow-up were excluded from the study. We also excluded patients operated on by low-volume surgeons. All complications, minor (edema, ecchymosis, pain), and major (infection and erosion) were recorded. After 1-year, patients were assessed and given a Likert scale from 1 to 5 where 5 is most satisfied with their MPI. We stratified patients according to MRD into 2 groups: group A for diameter 9.5 and 11 mm and group B for 13 mm.

Outcome

: Larger diameter of malleable penile implants may be associated with more complications

Results

183 patients had full data and filled the questionnaire after 1-year follow-up. All patients had Coloplast, Genesis penile implants. Major complications rate (infection, erosion, and removal) was significantly higher in group B 11% vs 1.2% in group A (P = .016). At 4 weeks postoperative visit, 90 % of group A showed no complications vs 60% only in group B that was statistically significant (P = .0003). Satisfaction rate was more in patients in group A (88.6%) compared to patients in group B (75.7%) but this did not reach to be statistically significant (P = .0519)

Clinical Implications

MRD predicts outcome.

Strengths & Limitations

The strengths of our study include that it is the first prospective study with good number of malleable implants. Limitations include: no validated satisfaction instrument and MRD choice was based on surgeon preference.

Conclusions

Larger diameter of malleable penile implants are not associated with a higher rate of patient satisfaction

Habous M, Omar M, Farag M et al. Malleable Penile Implant Rod Diameter Predicts Complications and Patient Satisfaction. Sex Med 2022;10:100486.

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.

Burnout in Canadian urology: Cohort analysis from the 2018 Canadian Urological Association census

INTRODUCTION

Physician burnout is associated with medical error, patient dissatisfaction, and poorer physician health. Urologists have reported high levels of burnout and poor work-life integration compared with other physicians. Burnout rates among Canadian urologists has not been previously investigated. We aimed to establish the prevalence of Canadian urologist burnout and associated factors.

METHODS

In the 2018 Canadian Urological Association census, the Maslach Burnout Inventory questions were assigned to all respondents. Responses from 105 practicing urologists were weighted by region and age group to represent 609 urologists in Canada. Burnout was defined as scoring high on the scales of emotional exhaustion or depersonalization. Demographic and practice variables were assessed to establish factors associated with burnout. Comparisons were made to the results of the 2016 American Urological Association census.

RESULTS

Overall, 31.8% of respondents met the criteria for burnout. There was no effect of subspecialty practice or practice setting on burnout. On univariate analysis, rates of burnout were highest among urologists under financial strain (50.8%), female urologists (45.3%), and early-to-mid-career urologists (37.7-41.8%). Factors associated with demanding practices and poor work-life integration were predictive of burnout. A total of 12.2% of urologists reported seeking burnout resources and 54.0% wished there were better resources available.

CONCLUSIONS

Urologist burnout in Canada is lower than reported in other countries, but contributing factors are similar. Urologists who report demanding clinical practices (particularly in early-to-mid career), poor work-life integration, financial strain, and female gender may benefit from directed intervention for prevention and management of burnout. Burnout resources for Canadian urologists require further development.

Global Trends in Prevalence, Treatments, and Costs of Penile Prosthesis for Erectile Dysfunction in Men

CONTEXT

Penile prosthesis is a durable and effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). Even as other treatment options for ED have been brought to market, penile prosthetic surgery remains a mainstay for urologists treating ED. No systematic study has yet summarized the global trends in penile prosthetic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review studies of trends in penile prosthetic surgery to determine global movements in implantation rates, malleable versus inflatable prosthetic surgery, inpatient versus outpatient implantation surgery, proportion of men with ED undergoing penile prosthetic surgery, and prosthetic cost.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for studies assessing trends in penile prosthetic surgeries and costs associated with penile prosthetic device and inclusive surgical costs.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-seven studies were identified during the systematic review, comprising 447,204 penile prosthetic surgeries reported from 1988 to 2019. A trend analysis demonstrates that rates of penile prosthetic surgery declined dramatically in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but have demonstrated modest growth since the mid-2000s. Outpatient inflatable penile prosthetic surgery has strongly trended upward. Costs of penile prosthetic device have matched the rate of inflation, but inclusive surgical cost has radically outpaced inflation. Growth has mainly been seen in the USA, with a more modest global growth.

CONCLUSIONS

Penile prosthesis remains a viable option for the treatment of ED. Trends such as outpatient surgery and inflatable penile prosthesis placement may be driving the recent steady growth of penile prosthetic surgeries, but surging inclusive surgical cost may present a barrier for some patients without insurance coverage.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Penile prostheses continue to be an important treatment for erectile dysfunction. While the volume of penile prosthetic surgeries dropped when phosphidiesterase-5 inhibitors became available, prosthetic surgery is becoming more patient centric, as seen by increases in inflatable prosthetic placement and outpatient surgery.

Implant practice building: tenets to growing a successful and rewarding practice

Achieving a thriving sexual medicine practice with a high volume of penile implants is both challenging and rewarding for the prosthetic surgeon. It is not an easy feat to accomplish. Techniques of practice building from physician referrals and marketing to the patient have changed remarkably in the era of social media. Peer-to-peer continues to be a critical source of physician referrals, but methods of "getting the word out" to patients have drastically altered. Internal marketing to one's own patients and external passing of information to prospective clients requires a robust presence on the internet. This workshop will focus on the achievement of high-volume implant practices in the age of the World Wide Web. Despite accomplishing this triumph through use of digital media, it is important to continue personal attainments to maintain your ethical image amongst your physician peers and the general public.

Challenging Ethical Scenarios in the Surgical Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: A Survey of High-Volume Penile Prosthesis Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how surgeons approach ethically challenging scenarios that arise in penile prosthesis surgery and identify patient-related factors that impact their approach.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to the Society for Urologic Prosthetic Surgeons membership consisting of 6 ethically challenging scenarios: an HIV+ patient, a patient with cognitive disability, a registered sex offender, a nonverbal patient, a litigious patient, and an uncontrolled diabetic patient whose insurance will lapse soon. Additional clinical information was provided to assess how the likelihood to offer surgery might change. The primary outcome was the likelihood of offering surgery in each scenario.

RESULTS

The response rate was 15.6% (n = 29). When compared to the baseline patient, respondents had a lower likelihood of offering surgery in all scenarios except the HIV+ patient, with the lowest likelihood of offering surgery to a sex offender (P < .01). Within each scenario, factors associated with an increased odds of offering surgery included knowledge that a patient with Down Syndrome is high functioning (odds ratio [OR] 5.0, confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-17.8), that a prior sex offender is currently married (OR 16.5, CI:3.5-99.8), that a litigious patient sued a surgeon for a retained sponge (OR 6.3, CI:1.7-24.3), and that a nonverbal patient had expressed prior interest in penile prosthesis surgery (OR 4.5, CI: 1.3-16.2).

CONCLUSION

Ethical principles, including respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice, are appropriately applied by urological prosthetic surgeons when ethical challenges arise. While the likelihood of offering penile prosthesis surgery is decreased with most ethical dilemmas, specific clinical factors often augment decision-making.

Minimizing Penile Prosthesis Implant Infection: What Can We Learn From Orthopedic Surgery?

The implantation of penile protheses for the surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction has risen in popularity over the past several decades. Considerable advances have been made in surgical protocol and device design, specifically targeting infection prevention. Despite these efforts, device infection remains a critical problem, which causes significant physical and emotional burden to the patient. The aim of this review is to broaden the discussion of best practices by not only examining practices in urology, but additionally delving into the field of orthopedic surgery to identify techniques and approaches that may be applied to penile prothesis surgery.

Penile implant infection prevention part 1: what is fact and what is fiction? Wilson's Workshop #9

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infections are undeniably devastating for patient and surgeon alike. While less common in this modern era, the landscape of prosthesis infection is shifting. Continued examination of risk factors for infection and re-evaluation of common practices remain critical should we aim to advance the field. Quality research on this topic is limited by several factors, among which small sample size and lack of coordinated effort pose the most precarious of challenges. Nonetheless, careful analysis of available data in conjuncture with judicious utilization of established research from other prosthetic fields can help us better grasp the issue at hand. In this review, we aim to do exactly that-to examine available evidence in an effort to discern fact from fiction. In this first part of the three part series, we aim to summarize our understanding of the pathogenesis behind prosthesis infections, explore known preoperative risk factors, and discuss intraoperative considerations for infection prevention. In the second part of this series, we will examine the game changing effect of infection retardant implant coatings. Part three of the series details postoperative prevention strategies, reviews salvage techniques, and discusses additional key considerations.

Worldwide trends in penile implantation surgery: data from over 63,000 implants

Background

Penile prosthesis implantation represents the gold standard of treatment for severe or medically refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). We sought to address the paucity of currently available literature about global penile prosthesis usage in regard to geography, patient age, surgical approach, implanter volume, and etiology of ED.

Methods

From device manufacturer information, we compiled data on over 63,000 implants performed worldwide. Data was grouped and then analyzed to examine trends in penile implantation between the years of 2005-2012.

Results

The number of implants was seen to steadily increase over the study period. Of the 63,013 total procedures recorded, 85.9% were performed within the United States. 60-78% of procedures were done using the penoscrotal (PS) approach, with only Belgium/Netherlands as an outlier with an infrapubic (INF) majority. The US was notable for having an increasing number of implanters doing 16-30, 31-50, or >100 implants yearly. Etiology of ED worldwide was variable, but "organic," post-prostatectomy, and diabetes accounted for the vast majority of cases worldwide.

Conclusions

Penile prosthesis implantation is an increasing practice, as evidenced by a steady increase in the number of implants performed over a 7-year study period. Acceptance of this treatment option for ED is variable by region with the US leading the annual number of implantations by a wide margin. Worldwide, there appears to be a predominance of surgeons placing implants via the PS approach.

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.

Damage Control Considerations During IPP Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes the latest reports in inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) complication management.

RECENT FINDINGS

IPP complications are rare, and reports are limited to retrospective studies. However, recent multi-institutional studies and use of national databases have provided further insight into risk factors for complications. Guidance on complication management is largely limited to techniques recommended by experts within the field. American Urological Association guidelines place IPP implantation as a first line erectile dysfunction treatment. However, the majority of cases are performed by low-volume (≤ 4 cases/year) surgeons. Herein, we summarize the IPP literature and our personal experience to provide guidance on managing IPP complications.

Simulation Training in Penile Implant Surgery: Assessment of Surgical Confidence and Knowledge With Cadaveric Laboratory Training

Introduction

Constraints on surgical resident training (work-hour mandates, shorter training programs, etc.) and availability of expert surgical educators may limit the acquisition of prosthetic surgical skills. As a result, training courses are being conducted to augment the prosthetic surgery learning experience.

Aim

To evaluate the impact of a hands-on cadaver-based teaching program on resident procedural knowledge and procedural confidence with placement of a penile prosthesis.

Main Outcome Measure

Changes in procedural knowledge and self-confidence following a focused training program on penile prosthetics.

Methods

As part of the 2017 Society of Urologic Prosthetic Surgeons and the Sexual Medicine Society of North America Annual Meeting, 31 urology residents participated in a simulation lab in prosthetic urology. The lab included didactic lectures and a hands-on cadaveric laboratory. Participants completed surveys before and after the course. Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests for matched pairs were used to compare respondents’ pre- and postcourse knowledge (% questions answered correctly) and confidence ratings. Prior implant experience was assessed.

Results

31 residents participated in this study. The majority of the participants were 4th- (41.9%) and 5th-year residents (38.7%). Participants showed a significant improvement in procedural knowledge test scores (68.8±13.4 vs 74.2 ± 13.0, P < .05) and self-reported increased median surgical confidence levels (4 vs 3, P value < .001) after completion of the cadaveric course. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that residents with prosthetic surgery experience of <10 cases benefited the most. In addition, improvement in surgical confidence levels observed was greater than the improvement in surgical knowledge. The overall cost of the simulation training course was approximately $1,483 per resident.

Conclusion

Simulation training in prosthetic surgery seems to improve surgical confidence and knowledge. Further research is needed to better understand the benefits and limitations of simulation training.

Lentz AC, Rodríguez D, Davis LG. Simulation training in penile implant surgery: Assessment of surgical confidence and knowledge with cadaveric laboratory training. Sex Med 2018;6:332–338.

Troubleshooting intraoperative complications of penile prosthesis placement

Placement of a penile prosthesis is an excellent option for well-selected patients, offering high patient satisfaction and a low rate of complications. Most urologists who perform the procedure are not high volume implanters and may have limited experience with troubleshooting intraoperative issues. In this review, the authors use current literature to provide recommendations for the management of various intraoperative issues such as difficultly with dilation, incongruent measurement, perforation, urethral injury, crossover, complications of reservoir placement, penile curvature, glans mobility, and hemostasis are all discussed. Preparedness for the management of intraoperative issues can help improve patient outcomes and limit morbidity.

[Evolution of the number and type of penile prostheses implanted in France for erectile dysfunction: Analysis of French national coding database (2006-2013)]

OBJECTIVES

Patients who are not responding to injectable and/or vacuum oral pharmacological treatments can receive a penile prosthesis. Three types of penile prostheses are used in France: rigid, semi-rigid and inflatable prostheses 3-piece or 2-piece. We have assessed the National surgical insertion practices between 2006 and 2013 (number of prostheses insertions, types, procedure locations, number of surgeons and distribution [public or private sectors]).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data analysis from the French Technical Agency of Information on Hospitals (ATIH) (2006-2013) using the common classification of medical acts (CCAM) and after code extractions related to this surgery (JHLA002, JHLA003, JHLA004).

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2013, the number of penile implants in France doubled (307 to 633), inflatable penile prostheses with an extracavernous component remained the most frequently used (87 %) (228 to 552) (+142 %). The use of semi-rigid prostheses declined by 26.7 %. The distribution between the private and public sector was close to 1 in 2013. More than half of French penile prostheses were implanted in three regions (Île-de-France, Languedoc-Roussillon, Rhône-Alpes). Nearly 62 % of surgeons implanted only one or two three-compartment prostheses in 2013.

CONCLUSION

The number of penile prostheses in France doubled between 2006 and 2013. Three regions were particularly active as far as this surgery is concerned (Île-de-France, Languedoc-Roussillon, Rhône-Alpes). They were boosted by 5 surgeons with more than 20 prostheses surgeries a year.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

The effect of minimally invasive prostatectomy on practice patterns of American urologists

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To determine how robotic prostatectomy affects practice patterns of urologists, we examined the case volume characteristics among certifying urologists for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. We hypothesized that the utilization of open and robotic prostatectomy as well as lymph node dissection changed dynamically over the last 10 years.

METHODS

A total of 6-month case log data of certifying urologists from 2003 to 2013 were obtained for the American Board of Urology. Cases were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes for open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic or robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) with a corresponding diagnosis of prostate cancer as defined by ICD-9 code 185.0.

RESULTS OBTAINED

A total of 6,563 urologists submitted case logs, of which 68% (4,470/6,563) reported performing at least one radical prostatectomy (RP), totaling 46,030 RPs logged. There was a 376% increase in the performance of RALP over the study period with robotic volume increasing from 22% of all RP in 2003 to 85% in 2013. Among surgeons performing ORP, the median number performed was 2; of surgeons who performed RALP, the median number performed was 8 (P<0.001). Overall, 39% of surgeons logging ORP performed 2 or fewer RP, whereas 19% of surgeons who performed RALP performed 2 or less RP (P<0.001). The highest volume robotic surgeons (top 10% surgical volume) performed 41% of all RALP with the highest performing robotic surgeon recording 658 prostatectomies over 6 months. Oncologists represented 4.1% of all surgeons performing RP and performed 15.1% of all RP (P<0.001); general urologists performed the majority of RP (57.8%). When performed open, there was no influence of surgeon specialty on the performance of lymph node dissection (LND); if performed robotically, oncologists were significantly more likely to perform LND compared with general surgeons (47% vs. 25.9%, respectively, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic prostatectomies are performed 5 times more commonly than open prostatectomy and represent 85% of all RP performed by board-certified urologists in 2013. Compared to RALP, ORP are significantly more likely to be performed by lower volume surgeons. Oncologists perform a higher relative percentage of RPs and are significantly more likely to perform LND if performed robotically when compared with general urologists.