Impact of Surgeon Case Volume on Reoperation Rates after Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery

Is it safe to implant a penile prosthesis in a solid organ transplant recipient? A systematic review

Solid organ transplant recipients exhibit an elevated incidence of erectile dysfunction, attributed to comorbidities and specific factors associated with organ failure. While treatment mirrors the general population's, response rates are lower, and there is a heightened concern about implanting a penile prosthesis in immunocompromised patients due to the potential occurrence of severe complications. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of penile prostheses in this population. Among fourteen included studies, ten were case reports or series of cases, and four were non randomized case-control studies with non-transplanted patients as controls. Complications affected 34 patients (11.15%), with mechanical device failures in 18 cases (5.9%) and infections in 13 cases (4.26%). Most infections required hospitalization, antibiotic treatment, and prosthesis removal, with two cases of life-threatening Fournier's gangrene. Case-control studies revealed no differences in overall reoperation rates between transplant recipients and controls. However, pelvic organ transplant recipients undergoing three-piece prosthesis implantation showed higher complications rates related to reservoir issues. Despite limited evidence, case-control studies demonstrated a generally low/moderate risk of bias within each specific domain, although overall bias was moderate/severe. As a result, clinicians may mitigate concerns regarding penile prosthesis implantation in solid organ transplant recipients.

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.

Preoperative counseling for penile implant surgery: standardized approach in a high-volume center of excellence

Shared-decision making is crucial in today's society. Although penile prosthesis surgery has had significant improvements regarding technique and materials over the last few decades - with the highest satisfaction rate in erectile dysfunction treatment at present time -, dissatisfaction can occur because of bad preoperative counseling with the creation of unrealistic expectations. This paper includes a small narrative review regarding the most important preoperative variables to be discussed in the preoperative setting. Literature search was conducted in December 2023 using PubMed. Additionally, our own standardized flowchart for preoperative counseling was added. The most important aspects of preoperative counseling include a description of the pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction as well as alternative treatments. Information should be given about which implant categories exist. Additionally, some information about the procedure itself as well as the financial aspect should be communicated. The most frequent and most important complications should be illustrated. Last but not least, the patient's expectations should be evaluated. Our added standardized flowchart with figure acts as a practical guideline for professionals as well as for patients. Our standardized approach for preoperative counseling emphasizes reasonable postoperative expectations aiming for a well-informed patient with high postoperative satisfaction. Our general strategy is to underpromise and overdeliver.

Delayed closed-suction drain removal following inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institutional experience

BACKGROUND

There are little published data regarding longer percutaneous drain durations following inflatable penile prosthesis placement; despite this, drain proponents suggest reduced scrotal hematoma formation, while detractors cite the risk of retrograde device seeding.

AIM

Here, we quantify the outcomes of a multi-institutional cohort with drain durations of 48 hours or greater.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for patients undergoing primary 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement who had a postoperative drain placed. Cases were performed by 3 surgeons at 3 high-volume centers between January 1, 2020, and March 31, 2022. It was the routine practice of these surgeons to leave percutaneous drains for an interval of 48 hours or greater. R software was used to perform statistical analysis and data visualization.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes included rates of infection and hematoma formation. Secondary outcomes included device explantation.

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 224 patients meeting initial inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 patients had their drains removed before 48 hours, leaving 209 patients for the analysis. Mean drain duration was 67 ± 24.7 hours. The mean follow-up interval was 170 days. Diabetes mellitus was present in 84 (40%) patients with a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.2%. Penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches were employed (n = 114 [54.5%] vs n = 95 [45.5%]). Reservoir location was split between space of Retzius and high submuscular, with space of Retzius being more common (n = 164 [78.5%] vs n = 45 [21.5%]). Discrete hematomas were observed in 7 patients, with subsequent operative intervention on 2. Notably, both of these were infection cases. There were 3 (1.4%) total device infections. Revision for noninfection causes was required in 9 (4.3%) patients. Fisher's exact testing demonstrated significant association between hematoma formation and anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy (P = .017). On multivariable logistic regression, only anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy remained significant (P = .035).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Maintaining percutaneous closed-suction bulb drains for >48 hours following IPP placement is safe.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This multi-institutional study fills a hole in IPP perioperative literature, as there have been no previously published data regarding drain durations >48 hours. The primary limitations are the retrospective nature and lack of a control population.

CONCLUSION

Maintaining closed-suction bulb drains for >48 hours following IPP implantation is safe and associated with infection rates comparable to other modern cohorts and a very low rate of hematoma formation.

Risk of unfavorable outcomes after penile prosthesis implantation - results from a national registry (INSIST-ED)

Like all surgeries, penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) has the potential for both postoperative complications and suboptimal patient satisfaction. In order to assess risk factors for poor satisfaction, we reviewed patients who had been prospectively recruited in a national multi-institutional registry of penile prostheses procedures (INSIST-ED) from 2014 to 20121. Patient baseline characteristics and postoperative complications were recorded. The primary endpoint of this study was unfavorable outcomes after inflatable PPI, defined as significant postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥2) and/or Sexuality with Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) scores below the 10th percentile. A total of 256 patients were included in the study. The median age was 60 years (IQR 56-67). The most common cause of erectile dysfunction (ED) was organic (42.2%), followed by pelvic surgery/radiotherapy (39.8%) and Peyronie's disease (18.0%). Postoperative complications were recorded in 9.6%. High-grade complications (Clavien ≥2) occurred in 4.7%. At 1-year follow-up, the median QoLSPP total score was 71 (IQR 65-76). In all, 14.8% of patients were classified as having experienced unfavorable outcomes because of significant postoperative complications and/or QoLSPP scores below the 10th percentile. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated patient age to be non-linearly associated with the risk of experiencing unfavorable outcomes. A U-shaped correlation showed a lower risk for younger and older patients and a higher risk for middle-aged men. ED etiology and surgical volume were not associated with PPI outcomes. Physicians should, therefore, be aware that middle-aged men may be at higher risk of being unsatisfied following PPI compared to both younger and older patients.

Defining the incidence and management of postoperative scrotal hematoma after primary and complex three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis surgery

Scrotal hematoma is a challenging complication of penile prosthesis surgery. We characterize the risk of hematoma formation with implementation of standardized techniques to mitigate hematomas and assess for any associated factors in a large multi-institutional penile implant cohort. This was a retrospective review from February 2018 to December 2020 of all patients who underwent inflatable penile prosthesis implantation at 2 high volume implant centers. Cases were defined as "complex" if they involved revision, salvage with removal/replacement, or were performed with concurrent penile, scrotal or intra-abdominal surgeries. The incidence of scrotal hematoma among primary and complex IPP recipients was measured and modifiable and innate risk factors associated with hematoma formation within the two cohorts were tracked. Of 246 men who underwent penile prosthesis surgery, 194 (78.9%) patients underwent primary implantation and 52 (21.1%) were complex. Although hematoma formers in the complex group had comparable drain outputs to primary patients on postoperative day 0 (66.8cc ± 32.5 vs 48.4 ± 27.7, p = 0.470) and postoperative day 1 (40.3cc ± 20.8vs 21.8 ± 11.3 p = 0.125), hematomas in the complex group had a higher propensity for OR evacuation (p = 0.03). Difference in duration of temporary device inflation between 2 (64, 26%) and 4 weeks (182, 74%) did not contribute to hematoma formation (p = 0.562). The incidence of postoperative hematoma formation in complex cases was 9.6% (5/52) and 3.6% in primary cases (7/194) (HR = 2.61, p = 0.072). Complex IPP surgery performed for revision or with ancillary procedures are more likely to result in clinically significant hematomas that require surgical management, suggesting a need for heightened caution in managing these individuals.

The management of erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes mellitus unresponsive to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

Erectile dysfunction is associated with diabetes mellitus with an estimated prevalence of 52.5% in the diabetic population. The first-line therapy for erectile dysfunction is phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, but data suggest that diabetic men may be less responsive than non-diabetic men. Thus, other treatments, including intracavernosal injections, intraurethral prostaglandin, vacuum erection devices and penile prosthetic surgery, should be considered in management of diabetic men with erectile dysfunction refractory to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. Furthermore, combination therapy of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and other oral treatments such as arginine or l-carnitine may have synergistic effects resulting in better outcomes. In addition, there are novel therapies such as low-intensity shockwave therapy and stem-cell therapy, which may also be effective in targeted treatment modalities. Furthermore, studies suggest that erectile dysfunction can be improved by targeting concurrent comorbidities or metabolic diseases such as depression, hypertension, hypogonadism, and dyslipidaemia. We present an evidence-based narrative review focusing on the management of erectile dysfunction in diabetic men who have not responded to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Both clinicians and patients should be aware of the different management options in diabetic patients who have not responded to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors.

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.

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.

Penile implant surgery-managing complications

Penile prosthesis surgery represents the end-stage treatment for erectile dysfunction. It is conventionally used only in cases of erectile dysfunction refractory to pharmacological treatments or vacuum constriction devices. Contemporary literature suggests that penile prothesis surgery is associated with a high satisfaction rate and a low complication profile. However, it must be appreciated that the complications of surgery can have devastating consequences on a patient’s quality of life and satisfaction and include infection, prosthesis malfunction, penile corporal perforation and penile length loss. Several factors – such as appropriate patient selection, methodical preoperative assessment and patient optimization, specific intraoperative protocols and postoperative recommendations – can reduce the risk of surgical complications. This narrative review discusses the diagnosis and management of both intraoperative and postoperative complications of penile prosthesis surgery.

Practice patterns of vasal reconstruction in a large United States cohort

We aimed to characterise diverse practice patterns for vasal reconstruction and to determine whether surgeon volume is associated with vasoepididymostomy performance at the time of reconstruction. We identified adult men who underwent vasal reconstruction from 2000 to 2020 in Premier Healthcare Database and determined patient, surgeon, cost and hospital characteristics for each procedure. We identified 3,494 men who underwent either vasovasostomy-alone (N = 2,595, 74.3%) or any-vasoepididymostomy (N = 899, 25.7%). The majority of providers (N = 487, 88.1%) performed only-vasovasostomy, 10 (1.8%) providers performed only-vasoepididymostomy and 56 (10.1%) providers performed both. Median total hospital charge of vasoepididymostomy was significantly higher than vasovasostomy ($39,163, interquartile range [IQR]$11,854-53,614 and $17,201, IQR$10,904-29,986, respectively). On multivariable regression, men who underwent procedures at nonacademic centres (OR 2.71, 95% CI 2.12-3.49) with higher volume surgeons (OR 11.60, 95% CI 8.65-16.00) were more likely to undergo vasoepididymostomy. Furthermore, men who underwent vasoepididymostomy were more likely to self-pay (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.83-3.04, p < .001) and more likely had procedures in the Midwest or West region (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.66-2.96 and OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61-2.76, respectively; p < .001). High-volume providers have increased odds of performing vasoepididymostomy at the time of reconstruction but at a significantly higher cost. These data suggest possibly centralising reconstructive procedures among high-volume providers.

Association between individual surgeon volume and outcome in mitral valve surgery: a systematic review

Background

Surgeon volume has been identified as a possible factor that influences outcomes in mitral valve (MV) surgery. The aim of this study was to systematically review all published studies on the association between individual surgeon volume and outcome in MV surgery.

Methods

PubMed was searched last on 19 November 2020. The reporting of this systematic review was done in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Manuscripts were eligible when these studied individual surgeon volumes and its association with repair rate, mortality or reoperation. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Absolute numbers and percentages of the outcome measures, odds ratios (ORs), P values and threshold values regarding surgeon volume were collected.

Results

A total of 7 retrospective cohort studies were included in the qualitative analysis with total of 158488 patients. Definitions of surgeon volumes were found to be heterogenic and therefore pooling of data was not possible. Surgeon volume was significantly associated with repair rate (OR =1.25–5.5) and mortality (OR =0.46–0.84 and OR =1.50–2.27 depending on the reference group). Regarding reoperation, results were not consistent and did not always show a significant lower reoperation rate when surgeon volume increased. A mean threshold of minimally 30 MV surgeries per year was found.

Discussion

Higher surgeon volume is significantly associated with improved outcomes of repair rate and mortality. MV should preferentially be performed by high-volume surgeons and centralization of MV surgery might be necessary.

Immune Deficiency Does Not Increase Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reoperation Rates

INTRODUCTION

Immunocompromised patients are postulated to have higher rates of post-operative infection. We sought to determine if inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reoperation rates (due to infection, erosion, device malfunction or patient dissatisfaction) are higher among immunocompromised men.

METHODS

We analyzed men who underwent initial IPP insertion from 2000 to 2016 in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Immunocompromised patients were propensity-score matched in a 1:3 fashion with immunocompetent patients. We estimated and compared reoperation rates (including removal, reoperation due to infection, revision, or replacement of an IPP after an index procedure) at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year and 3 years of follow up between immunocompromised men and controls by performing a Kaplan Meier analysis and Log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards models were built to examine the overall association between immune deficient status and the risk of reoperation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Reoperation rate and time to reoperation after index IPP placement.

RESULTS

A total of 245 immunocompromised patients who received an initial IPP between 2000 and 2016 were identified. After propensity score matching, we analyzed 235 immunocompromised men and 705 controls. There was no difference in overall reoperation rates between immunocompromised men and controls within any time period assessed (30 days, 90 days, 1 year, or 3 years). In our Cox proportional hazards model, the hazards of overall reoperation, removal, or revision/replacement (HR 1.11 [95% CI 0.74-1.67], HR 1.58 [95% CI 0.90-2.79)], and HR 0.83 [95% CI 0.47-1.45], respectively) were not significant different between immunocompromised men and controls. Reoperation due to infection was also not significantly different between immunocompromised and immunocompetent men (HR 2.06 [95% CI 0.97-4.40]).

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

This study is strengthened by its size as the largest cohort of immunocompromised men treated with IPP to date in the literature, but is limited by the retrospective nature of the database which may introduce selection bias and by the low event rate for IPP reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation rates, including those due to infection, are not significantly different between immunocompromised men and immunocompetent controls. Therefore, immune status in appropriately selected candidates does not appear to place patients at substantially higher risk of explant or revision. Gaffney CD, Fainberg J, Aboukhshaba A, et al. Immune Deficiency Does Not Increase Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reoperation Rates. J Sex Med 2021;18:1427-1433.

Long-term outcomes after penile prosthesis placement for the Management of Erectile Dysfunction: a single-Centre experience

Background

Penile prothesis (PP) is the gold-standard treatment of drug-refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). While postoperative outcomes have been widely described in the literature, there are few data about patient satisfaction and intraoperative events. We aimed to assess long-term patient satisfaction and perioperative outcomes after PP implantation in a single-centre cohort of unselected patients using validated scales.

Results

A total of 130 patients received a PP (median age: 62.5 years [IQR: 58–69]; median International Index of Erectile Function (IEEF-5) score: 6 [IQR: 5–7]). Median follow-up was 6.3 years [IQR: 4–9.4]. Thirty-two (24.6%) patients underwent surgical revision, of which 20 were PP removals (15.4%). Global PP survival rate was 84.6% and previous PP placement was a risk factor for PP removal (p = 0.02). There were six (4.6%) non-life-threatening intraoperative events including two which resulted in non-placement of a PP (1.5%). EAUiaic grade was 0 for 124 procedures (95.4%), 1 for four procedures (3.1%) and 2 for two procedures (1.5%). Of patients who still had their PP at the end of the study, 91 (80.5%) expressed satisfaction.

Conclusions

PP implantation is a last-resort treatment for ED with a satisfactory outcome. PPs are well accepted by patients.

Modern treatment strategies for penile prosthetics in Peyronie's disease: a contemporary clinical review

Peyronie's disease is a common condition resulting in penile deformity, psychological bother, and sexual dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction is one common comorbid condition seen in men with Peyronie's disease, and its presence significantly impacts treatment considerations. In a man with Peyronie's disease and significant erectile dysfunction who desires the most reliable treatment, penile prosthesis placement should be strongly considered. In some instances, such as those patients with relatively mild curvature, prosthesis placement alone may result in adequate straightening. However, many patients will require additional straightening maneuvers such as manual modeling, penile plication, and tunica albuginea incision with or without grafting. For patients with severe penile shortening, penile length restoration techniques may also be considered. Herein, we provide a comprehensive clinical review of penile prosthesis placement in men with Peyronie's disease. Specifically, we discuss preoperative indications, intraoperative considerations, adjunctive straightening maneuvers, and postoperative outcomes.

Epidemiology regarding penile prosthetic surgery

With the onset of a metabolic syndrome epidemic and the increasing life expectancy, erectile dysfunction (ED) has become a more common condition. As incidence and prevalence increase, the medical field is focused on providing more appropriate therapies. It is common knowledge that ED is a chronic condition that is also associated with a myriad of other disorders. Conditions such as aging, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, prostatic hypertrophy, and prostate cancer, among others, have a direct implication on the onset and progression of ED. Characterization and recognition of risk factors may help clinicians recognize and properly treat patients suffering from ED. One of the most reliable treatments for ED is penile prosthetic surgery. Since the introduction of the penile prosthesis (PP) in the early seventies, this surgical procedure has improved the lives of thousands of men, with reliable and satisfactory results. The aim of this review article is to characterize the epidemiology of men undergoing penile prosthetic surgery, with a discussion about the most common conditions involved in the development of ED, and that ultimately drive patients into electing to undergo PP placement.

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.

Unexpected nuances of the penoscrotal inflatable penile prosthesis

The inflatable penile prosthesis was first implanted with a large vertical suprapubic incision. Nowadays, three surgical approaches are utilized: penoscrotal, infrapubic, and subcoronal. Globally the penoscrotal approach is used most often. Our first author describes nuances of the high transverse scrotal incision technique gained over 48 years of experience. Many of these methods will interest the reader because they are divergent from the common practice of implanters across the world. These distinctions are designed to diminish the risk of infection, speed up the surgery, and improve outcomes for both the patient and his surgeon.

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.

The future of penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction

Penile prostheses (both inflatable and malleable) are standard care in the management of erectile dysfunction (ED). Introduced over 45 years ago, modern penile implants have evolved greatly during that period of time and now represent the cutting edge in materials science and function. Despite the introduction of highly effective oral pharmacotherapy for ED, these devices have remained relevant and will almost certainly remain so for the foreseeable future. Despite their high degree of efficacy, there is always potential for further improvements in both implants themselves and the surgical techniques and processes used for their placement. In this manuscript we speculate on the future of penile implants, based in large part on the historical perspective and recent developments in the implant surgery space. We include recommendations on future technical innovations, post-operative management, and novel implant designs that may revolutionize the future management of ED.

An update on: long-term outcomes of penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Penile prosthesis placement is the gold standard for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) refractory to medical therapy; however, limited data exist on the long-term outcomes of these devices.

AREAS COVERED

A PubMed search focused on long-term outcomes of penile prosthetics was performed. Studies with a follow-up of less than 5 years were excluded. Included studies were arranged chronologically by implant date to identify trends in device lifetime. Data were further scrutinized to separate device failure secondary to mechanical malfunction from device failure secondary to infection.

EXPERT OPINION

Limited data prevent accurate 15-year predictions for modern prosthetics. The 5- and 10-year overall survival of modern prosthetics is estimated to be 90.4% and 86.6%, respectively. Infection rates are estimated to be 1.5% and 1.8% at 8 and 10 years, respectively. While great strides have been made in device design, there is still potential for advancement in both infection rate reduction and mechanical improvement. The combination of increased collaboration between implanting urologists and engineers from prosthetic device companies and improved, prospectively collected data will usher prosthetic urology into its next era.

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.

Diabetes Is a Risk Factor for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Infection: Analysis of a Large Statewide Database

INTRODUCTION

Although diabetes mellitus (DM) is often discussed as a risk factor for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infection, the link between DM diagnosis and IPP infection remains controversial. High-quality population-based data linking DM to an increased risk of IPP infection have not been published.

AIM

To evaluate the association of DM with IPP infection in a large public New York state database.

METHODS

The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database was queried for men who underwent initial IPP insertion from 1995-2014. Diabetic patients were identified using ICD-9-CM codes. Patients presenting for first operation with diagnosis or Current Procedural Terminology codes suggestive of prior IPP surgery were excluded. Chi-squared analyses were performed to compare infection rates in diabetics and non-diabetics within the pre- and postantibiotic impregnated eras. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate whether or not DM was independently associated with IPP infection in the time periods before (1995-2003) and after (2004-2014) the widespread availability of antibiotic impregnated penile prostheses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time to prosthesis infection was measured.

RESULTS

14,969 patients underwent initial IPP insertion during the study period. The overall infection rate was 343/14,969 (2.3%). Infections occurred at a median 3.9 months after implant (interquartile ratio: 1.0-25.0 months). Infectious complications were experienced by 3% (133/4,478) of diabetic patients and 2% (210/10,491) of non-diabetic patients (P < .001). Diabetes was associated with a significantly increased IPP infection risk on multivariable analysis controlling for age, race, comorbidities, insurance status, annual surgeon volume, and era of implantation (Hazard Ratio: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.05-1.66, P = .016).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis supports the notion that DM is a risk factor for IPP infection. This has important implications for patient selection and counseling, and raises the question of whether this increased risk can be mitigated by optimization of glycemic control before surgery. Lipsky MJ, Onyeji I, Golan R, et al. Diabetes Is a Risk Factor for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Infection: Analysis of a Large Statewide Database. Sex Med 2019;7:35-40.

The Rear Tip Extender for Inflatable Penile Prostheses: Introduction of "Rigidity Factor" and Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Rear tip extenders (RTEs) are often used in penile prosthesis surgery, and their value and use have varied with the evolution of penile prostheses.

AIM

To review the literature addressing RTEs and to introduce a new term, rigidity factor, which quantifies the ratio of inflatable to non-inflatable component of the cylinders.

METHODS

The urologic literature was reviewed for all mention of RTEs. In addition, literature regarding penile prostheses was explored for mention of RTEs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

A search on PubMed for "rear tip extender" resulted in 17 publications. These publications were reviewed, and references were also explored for related publications.

RESULTS

The history of the development of RTEs, complications associated with the use of RTEs, and current practices in the use of RTEs are all discussed. In addition, recent publications regarding RTEs were examined in detail. RTEs were introduced in the 1980s to improve mechanical survival of prostheses. They were thought to decrease input tubing wear. Although the trend recently has been to place more rear tips, evidence has surfaced suggesting a link to increased need for reoperation with additional RTEs. In addition, we believe that increased length of RTEs can decrease erectile quality. Rigidity factor, defined as the ratio of the live (inflatable) portion of cylinder to the total cylinder length, can be used to quantify the effect of RTE on erectile strength. However, the effects of RTEs on biomechanical properties of the penis when fully inflated are still not fully understood.

CONCLUSION

The use of RTEs is a relatively underexplored area of penile prosthesis placement. Further laboratory and in vivo work will allow for a better understanding of the optimal role of RTEs in penile prosthesis surgery. Thirumavalavan N, Cordon BH, Gross MS, et al. The Rear Tip Extender for Inflatable Penile Prostheses: Introduction of "Rigidity Factor" and Review of the Literature. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:516-520.

Is Hba1c level of diabetic patients associated with penile prosthesis implantation infections?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Diabetes mellitus is an important risk factor for erectile dysfunction (ED). Penile prosthesis implantation surgery is the final solution for diabetic patients with ED, but infections thereof are still a serious risk factor. While some studies suggest that most infections associated with penile prosthesis implantation are associated to high glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, other research did support such relationship.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current study assessed retrospectively, the association between HbA1c level and penile prosthesis surgery infection. We retrieved and reviewed the records of 300 diabetic patients who had penile prosthesis surgery at our Institution (January 2012-November 2016). Patients' mean age was 55.26 ± 10.9 years (31% patients were <50 years of age), and mean HbA1c was 7.60 ± 1.90%.

RESULTS

Infection rate among diabetics was 0.67%. Prevalence of prosthesis infection among patients with HbA1c ≤ 9% was 0.9%, compared with 0% among patients with HbA1c > 9%. Prosthesis infection risk did not significantly increase with higher HbA1c levels, with no meaningful difference in the median or mean level of HbA1c in the infected and non-infected diabetic patients.

CONCLUSION

Findings do not support the use of HbA1c values among diabetic patients who are candidates for penile prosthesis implantation surgery in order to identify and exclude those who might be prone to increased risk of prosthesis infections. Future studies would benefit from larger sample sizes in order to support or refute our findings.

Preoperative counseling and expectation management for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation

The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard surgical treatment for medical refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). While the modern IPP has enjoyed high satisfaction rates as a product of its continued innovation, reliability, and performance, patient dissatisfaction can still occur. IPP implantation restores physiologic function with cosmetic and psychological consequences, both of which place inherent emphasis on preoperative counseling and expectation management. This review aims to highlight the complex nature of such counseling and provide practitioners with a roadmap to navigate the landscape. Preoperative counseling begins with appropriate patient selection and identification of those patients who are at risk for dissatisfaction as a result of personality characteristics. The informed consent provides a natural framework to discuss the host of complications and risks that are associated with surgery, including infection, device malfunction, damage to nearby structures, and device erosion. Device selection is a nuanced process that merges patient preference with clinical factors and consideration. We address device selection through a description of cylinder construction, pump design, and reservoir placement in the context of preoperative counseling. Lastly, we draw attention to expectation management with a specific focus on possible post-operative changes to penile length and sensation as well as partner involvement. The modern IPP provides excellent results with high patient and partner satisfaction. Ultimately, satisfaction is dependent on multiple factors, but providing accurate, realistic counseling and expectation management prepares patients for the best possible outcomes.

Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction

Penile prosthesis implant surgery is an effective management approach for a number of urological conditions, including medication refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). Complications encountered post-operatively include infection, bleeding/hematoma, and device malfunction. Since the 1970s, modifications to these devices have reduced complication rates through improvement in antisepsis and design using antibiotic coatings, kink-resistant tubing, lock-out valves to prevent autoinflation, and modified reservoir shapes. Device survival and complication rates have been investigated predominately by retrospective database-derived studies. This review article focuses on the identification and management of post-operative complications following penile prosthetic and implant surgery. Etiology for ED, surgical technique, and prosthesis type are variable among studies. The most common post-operative complications of infection, bleeding, and device malfunction may be minimized by adherence to consistent technique and standard protocol. Novel antibiotic coatings and standard antibiotic regimen may reduce infection rates. Meticulous hemostasis and intraoperative testing of devices may further reduce need for revision surgery. Additional prospective studies with consistent reporting of outcomes and comparison of surgical approach and prosthesis type in patients with variable ED etiology would be beneficial.

Evaluating the Role of Postoperative Oral Antibiotic Administration in Artificial Urinary Sphincter and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Explantation: A Nationwide Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether postoperative oral antibiotics are associated with decreased risk of explantation following artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) or inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement. Although frequently prescribed, the role of postoperative oral antibiotics in preventing AUS or IPP explantation is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We queried the MarketScan database to identify male patients undergoing AUS or IPP placement between 2003 and 2014. The primary end point was device explantation within 3 months of placement. Multivariate regression analysis controlling for clinical risk factors assessed the impact of postoperative oral antibiotic administration on explant rates.

RESULTS

We identified 10,847 and 3594 men who underwent IPP and AUS placement, respectively, between 2003 and 2014. Postoperative oral antibiotics were prescribed to 60.6% of patients following IPP placement and 61.1% of patients following AUS placement. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were fluoroquinolones (35.6%), cephalexin (17.7%), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (7.0%), and amoxicillin-clavulanate (3.2%). Explant rates did not differ based upon receipt of oral antibiotics (antibiotics vs no antibiotics: IPP: 2.2% vs 1.9%, P = .18, AUS: 3.9% vs 4.0%, P = .94). On multivariate analysis, no individual class of antibiotic was associated with decreased odds of device explantation.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative oral antibiotics are prescribed to nearly two-thirds of patients but are not associated with reduced odds of explant following IPP or AUS placement. Given the risks to individuals associated with use of antibiotics and increasing bacterial resistance, the role of oral antibiotics after prosthetic placement should be reconsidered and further studied in a prospective fashion.