Cost and time benefits of dual implantation of inflatable penile and artificial urinary sphincter prosthetics by single incision

Complication rates in concurrent inflatable penile prosthesis and incontinence surgery: Comparing the penoscrotal versus perineal incision approach

The main objective of this study was to assess the IPP complication rates of patients undergoing placement via perineal incision versus more traditional penoscrotal approach in synchronous dual implantation. We identified 38 patients who underwent dual implantations of an IPP and AUS or urethral sling from 2011 to 2021 at a single tertiary center, 24 via perineal and 14 via penoscrotal incision. All IPP implants were done by a single surgeon. IPP postoperative complications were captured using the Clavien-Dindo classification at three separate time points, < 30 days, 30 days - 6 months, and > 6 months. The perineal group had two complications, IPP explantation due to rectourethral fistula (Grade III, > 6 months), and IPP explantation due to chronic genital pain (Grade III, > 6 months). The penoscrotal group had three complications, post-operative urinary retention requiring catheterization (Grade I, < 30 days), incision site infection (Grade I, < 30 days), and IPP explantation due to infection (Grade III, 30 days to < 6 months). There was no statistically significant difference in rate of patients with IPP complications between the two groups (p = 0.546) or in rate of IPP device malfunction (p = 0.264). These preliminary findings suggest that the single perineal incision is a viable surgical approach in synchronous dual implantation.

Simultaneous implant of inflatable penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter: a single high-volume center experience

Erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence are both an important sequel after local therapy for prostate cancer, such as radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy. The implant of an inflatable penile prosthesis or an artificial urinary sphincter is an option if other treatments fail in both cases. There is a lack of literature regarding a simultaneous dual implantation. The aim of this study is to describe per- and postoperative morbidity and functional results. We included 25 patients operated between January 2018 and August 2022. Data were collected retrospectively. Standardized questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction were administered. There was a median operative time of 45 min (IQR 41.25-58). No intra-operative complications were seen. Four patients needed revision surgery, all of them regarding the sphincter prosthesis. One of these patients had additional revision surgery due to leakage of the penile implant reservoir. There were no infectious complications. There was a median follow-up time of 29 months (IQR 9.5-43). There was a satisfaction rate of 88% with patients and 92% with partners. Postoperative pads per day were reduced to zero or one in 96% of patients. We conclude that the dual implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis and an artificial urinary sphincter was a safe and effective treatment in our series for patients with conservative treatment-refractory stress urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

Synchronous Surgical Management of Erectile Dysfunction and Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reoperation Rates

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy, safety, and postoperative outcomes of synchronous surgery for concomitant erectile dysfunction (ED) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the available synchronous surgical approaches for concomitant ED and SUI and to assess the reoperation rates compared to asynchronous surgery and surgery only for ED or SUI.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases until June 2022 for relevant studies. Based on data availability, we performed a meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) comparing reoperation rates after synchronous surgery in patients with concomitant ED and SUI versus asynchronous surgery, as well as surgery solely for ED or SUI (PROSPERO: CRD42022326941).

RESULTS

We included 18 studies in the systematic review (16,517 patients) and 5 in the meta-analysis. Comparing synchronous implantation of penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) versus asynchronous surgery, no statistically significant differences were observed in the reoperation rates [OR:0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-1.84, I²:0%). Comparing synchronous implantation of both penile prosthesis and AUS versus implantation of only a penile prosthesis or an AUS, combined surgery was associated with higher reoperation rates (OR:2.02, 95%CI: 1.29-3.16, I²:36% and OR:1.7, 95%CI: 1.25-2.32, I²:0%, respectively). Synchronous surgery led to high satisfaction rates and significant improvement in ED and SUI. Evidence for the combination of penile prosthesis with a male sling or the ProACT device is low, but data suggests it may be safe and effective. The synchronous placement of a Mini-Jupette sling and penile prosthesis represents a promising treatment modality for the correction of ED and mild SUI and/or climacturia.

CONCLUSIONS

Synchronous penile prosthesis and AUS implantation appears safe and effective in patients with severe ED and SUI. Further high-quality studies are mandatory to strengthen the current scarce evidence for synchronous surgery in patients with ED and SUI. Pyrgidis N, Barham DW, Hammad M, et al. Synchronous Surgical Management of Erectile Dysfunction and Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reoperation Rates. Sex Med Rev 2022;XX:XXX-XXX.

Artificial urinary sphincter surgery in the special populations: neurological, revision, concurrent penile prosthesis and female stress urinary incontinence groups

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) remains the standard of care in men with severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI) following prostate surgery and radiation. While the current AUS provides an effective, safe, and durable treatment option, it is not without its limitations and complications, especially with regard to its utility in some “high-risk” populations. This article provides a critical review of relevant publications pertaining to AUS surgery in specific high-risk groups such as men with spinal cord injury, revision cases, concurrent penile prosthesis implant, and female SUI. The discussion of each category includes a brief review of surgical challenge and a practical action-based set of recommendations. Our increased understandings of the pathophysiology of various SUI cases coupled with effective therapeutic strategies to enhance AUS surgery continue to improve clinical outcomes of many patients with SUI.

Penile prosthesis implant in the special populations: diabetics, neurogenic conditions, fibrotic cases, concurrent urinary continence surgery, and salvage implants

Penile prosthesis implant (PPI) remains an effective and safe treatment option for men with erectile dysfunction (ED). However, PPI surgery can be associated with a higher risk of complications in certain populations. This article provides a critical review of relevant publications pertaining to PPI in men with diabetes, significant corporal fibrosis, spinal cord injury, concurrent continence surgery, and complex salvage cases. The discussion of each category of special populations includes a brief review of the surgical challenges and a practical action-based set of recommendations. While specific patient populations posed considerable challenges in PPI surgery, strict pre- and postoperative management coupled with safe surgical practice is a prerequisite to achieving excellent clinical outcomes and high patient satisfaction rate.

Treatment of Urinary Incontinence in Patients With Erectile Dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Concurrent urinary incontinence (UI) and erectile dysfunction (ED) can greatly damage a patient's quality of life. Owing to the intertwined anatomy, treatment options for one most certainly have implications on the other.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to characterize and elucidate the treatment patients with postprostatectomy UI undergoing concurrent or subsequent treatment of ED. These principles can be extrapolated to all patients with UI and ED.

METHODS

The literature on postprostatectomy UI treatment in the context of concurrent ED was reviewed through a Medline search. Original research using quantitative and qualitative methodologies was considered.

RESULTS

The epidemiology, workup, and management of postprostatectomy UI being mindful of ongoing or future ED treatments are the main outcome measures. Owing to the intertwined anatomy, treatment options for UI and ED have implications on the other. It is essential for the surgeon to obtain an understanding of the patient's degree of bother for each process, personal preference on treatment options, and management of expectations. Surgical treatment options include a combination of the artificial urinary sphincter, sling, inflatable penile prosthesis, semi-rigid penile prosthesis, and new techniques such as the Mini-Jupette. The appropriate combinations will be determined by patient factors of dexterity, preference, degree of leakage, history of radiation, and so on. The decision of staged vs dual implant will be largely driven by the surgeons' preference, payor limitations, and comfort level. This issue is particularly challenging in redo cases where we advocate for cuff downsizing or tandem cuff before the transcorporal approach is used with the goal of preserving sexual function.

CONCLUSION

The concurrent treatment of ED and UI requires thoughtful workup, meticulous attention to detail, and an armamentarium of surgical skills. It is crucial for the surgeon to understand and manage patient expectations in treating these delicate and difficult pathologies. Ajay D, Mendez MH, Wang R, et al. Treatment of Urinary Incontinence in Patients With Erectile Dysfunction. J Sex Med 2020;XX:XXX-XXX.

Concurrent Penile Prosthesis and Artificial Urinary Sphincter versus Penile Prosthesis and Male Sling: A National Multi-Institutional Analysis of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database Comparing Postoperative Morbidity

Purpose

We aimed to assess the 30-day morbidity in patients undergoing combined insertion of penile prosthesis (PP) and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) vs. PP and male sling (MS).

Materials and Methods

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to identify patients who underwent placement of AUS or MS combined with PP. Patient demographics, postoperative morbidity including complications, readmission and reoperation rates were recorded. Student t-test and chi-square or Fischer's exact test were used as appropriate.

Results

Forty-one patients met selection criteria between 2010 and 2016. Overall, 26 patients received PP and AUS vs. 15 that received PP and MS. Average age was similar in both groups (64.8±6.6 years vs. 62.3±6.3 years, p=0.254). Diabetes mellitus was more prevalent in PP+MS group compared to AUS+PP group (46.7% vs. 11.5%, p=0.022). Average length of stay was higher in PP+AUS group compared to PP+MS group (2.2±0.6 days vs. 1.8±0.4 days, p=0.017). Postoperative morbidity was reported in four patients in PP+AUS group. No reported complications in PP+MS group. In PP+AUS group, complications included one patient who developed urinary tract infection, one developed surgical site infection, readmission in two for postoperative infection, and one return to the operating room. No reported prosthesis explantation or revision in either groups.

Conclusions

Our results showed that 30-day morbidity was recorded in the PP+AUS group and none in the PP+MS group. The complication and readmission rates remain comparable to the previous reports in both groups.

Synchronous surgery for the combined treatment of post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence: a lucrative evolution or an unnecessary complexity?

Aim of this review is to summarize and evaluate the current literature addressing the synchronous combined surgical treatment approach for co-existent post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence. Severity of stress urinary incontinence is the basic element that defines which option of combined surgery will be offered to a patient. So, for cases of severe erectile dysfunction and severe stress urinary incontinence (>4 pads/day) the only available option is synchronous inflatable penile prosthesis plus artificial urinary sphincter dual implantation. When severe erectile dysfunction coexist with mild to moderate stress urinary incontinence synchronous inflatable penile prosthesis plus male sling or ProAct (Uromedica, Plymouth, MN, USA) device are the current available treatment options. Finally, when severe erectile dysfunction along with mild stress urinary incontinence and with or without climacturia are present, a new surgical technique of simultaneous inflatable penile prosthesis plus urethral mini-sling, named "Andrianne mini-jupette", implantation has been recently proposed. Synchronous combined surgery for post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence seems to offer similar efficacy and safety results compared with two-stage implantation but in a more cost- and time effective approach. Thus, synchronous surgery, in the hands of experienced prosthetic surgeons, could be potentially a valuable alternative for the management of co-existent post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence. Nevertheless, in order to acquire robust scientific data further prospective comparative studies on larger numbers of patients are surely needed.

Infection Prevention Considerations for Complex Penile Prosthesis Recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to critically analyze and summarize recent studies in the area of penile prosthesis surgery outcomes with a focus on infection prevention in high-risk patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Reduction of surgical time in complex prosthesis surgery may reduce infection risk. Concomitant implant surgery is not associated with increased infection risk. Certain immunocompromised patients may be more likely to have penile implant infections, but these may not include patients with well-controlled HIV, well-controlled diabetes, or transplant recipients. Substance abuse is correlated with increased risk of infection after penile implant surgery. Careful patient selection and preoperative optimization can reduce infection risk in spinal cord injury patients. In the last 5 years, there have been several important studies investigating the risk of penile prosthesis infection in complex patients, clarifying which patient categories are at increased risk and how that risk can be mitigated.

30-day adverse event rates following penile prosthesis surgery: an American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program based evaluation

Background

Commonly utilized as a third-line therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) management, the penile prostheses have become a staple treatment for ED refractory to pharmacological interventions. There is however a paucity of data in the literature pertaining to short-term adverse outcomes following penile prosthesis surgery. We thus sought to leverage the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) to evaluate such outcomes within 30 days of surgery in these patients. We hypothesized that such data will lead to a more informed patient-physician consultation.

Methods

Relying on the ACS-NSQIP database [2005–2013], patients undergoing penile prosthesis placement were identified utilizing the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes: 54400, 54401, 54405, 54406, 54407, 54408, 54410, 54411, 54416 and 54417. Outcomes assessed included system-wise categorized complications, length-of-stay (LOS), and re-intervention, readmission and 30-day mortality rates. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze available data. Multivariate analysis could not be performed due to small sample size.

Results

Overall, 98 cases of patients who underwent surgery for penile prosthesis placements between the years 2005 and 2013 were reported by the ACS-NSQIP affiliated hospitals. The median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 58–70 years). The overall 30-day complication rate was 11.3% (n=11); 5 of the 11 complications were infectious in etiology, and three were a postoperative blood transfusion event. The median LOS was 1 day. One (1.0%) patient needed to return to the operating room, two patients (2.6%) were readmitted and there was one (1.0%) death within 30 days of the original surgery.

Conclusions

Surgery for penile prosthesis appears to be a safe operation despite the routinely advanced age of the patients requiring it. Complications in the immediate postoperative setting are usually infectious. This data can be used in the clinical setting for a more informed patient-physician discussion and patient expectation management.

Is Risk of Artificial Urethral Sphincter Cuff Erosion Higher in Patients with Penile Prosthesis?

INTRODUCTION

Frequently encountered morbidities after prostatectomy include stress urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Patients with severe disease may undergo placement of both a penile prosthesis (PP) and an artificial urethral sphincter (AUS).

AIM

We hypothesized that concomitant PP may promote AUS cuff erosion by impaired corporal blood flow and/or direct pressure on the cuff. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of AUS cuff erosion in patients with and without a PP.

METHODS

We reviewed 366 AUS operations at our tertiary center between 2007 and 2015 with a mean follow-up of 41 months (range 6-104). Included in the analysis were first-time AUS cuff erosions. Patients with recurrent erosions, AUS revisions, and iatrogenic erosions were excluded. In a separate analysis, we analyzed AUS explantations for all causes. Cohorts were compared by demographic information, preoperative characteristics, and rates of erosion and explantation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Erosion confirmed by cystourethroscopy and explantation of the AUS for all causes.

RESULTS

Among 366 AUS surgeries at a mean follow-up of 41 months, there were 248 (67.8%) AUS alone cases compared to 118 (32.2%) AUS and PP cases (AUS/PP). Sixty-two patients met exclusion criteria for first-time cuff erosion. Among 304 evaluable AUS patients, we found a significantly higher rate of erosion in the AUS/PP group (11/95, 11.6%) compared to the AUS alone group (9/209, 4.3%, P = .037). When examining explantations for all causes in the entire cohort (n = 366), we observed a significantly higher rate of device removal, (20/118, 17%) in the AUS/PP group compared to the AUS group (23/248, 9.2%, P = .044).

CONCLUSION

AUS/PP patients appear to have a higher risk of AUS cuff erosion and explantation compared to men with AUS alone.

Synchronous Ipsilateral High Submuscular Placement of Prosthetic Balloons and Reservoirs

INTRODUCTION

Synchronous ipsilateral high submuscular placement of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) pressure-regulating balloons (PRBs) and inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs in a single submuscular tunnel is a novel strategy that could be advantageous for patients who have had major pelvic surgery.

AIM

To report our initial experience with synchronous ipsilateral vs bilateral placement of AUS PRBs and IPP reservoirs in men undergoing implant surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing synchronous AUS and IPP placement from 2007 through 2015 by a single surgeon at our tertiary center. Patients were stratified according to ipsilateral vs bilateral placement of the AUS PRB and IPP reservoir.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reoperation rates because of infectious or erosive complications and mechanical failure were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 968 implant surgeries during the study period, 47 men had synchronous device placement, of whom 17 (36%) underwent ipsilateral placement of the PRB and reservoir. During a median follow-up of 19 months (range = 1-84 months), reoperations were necessary in 12 of 47 (26%) and were similar between groups (ipsilateral, 5 of 17, 29%; bilateral, 7 of 30, 23%; P = .73). Most reoperations were due to AUS-related complications (10 of 12, 83%) and nearly all patients with reoperation (10 of 12, 83%) had compromised urethras (ie, prior urethral surgery, radiation, or prior AUS implantation). The most common indication for reintervention was cuff erosion (4 of 47, 9%), with no difference between groups (ipsilateral, 3 of 17, 18%; bilateral, 1 of 30, 3%; P = .13).

CONCLUSION

Synchronous ipsilateral high submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons could safely facilitate prosthetic surgery in patients with a history of major pelvic and inguinal surgery.

Management of end-stage erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy by simultaneous dual implantation using a single trans-scrotal incision: surgical technique and outcomes

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and end-stage erectile dysfunction (ED) after radical prostatectomy (RP) can decrease a patient's quality of life (QoL). We describe a surgical technique involving scrotal incision for simultaneous dual implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Patients with moderate to severe SUI (>3 pads per day) and end-stage ED following RP were selected for dual implantation. An upper transverse scrotal incision was made, followed by bulbar urethra dissection and AUS cuff placement. Through the same incision, the corpora cavernosa was exposed, and an IPP positioned. Followed by extraperitoneal reservoirs placement and pumps introduced in the scrotum. Short-term, intra- and post-operative complications; continence status and erectile function; and patient satisfaction and QoL were recorded. A total of 32 patients underwent dual implantation. Early AUS-related complications were: AUS reservoir migration and urethral erosion. One case of distal corporal extrusion occurred. No prosthetic infection was reported. Over 96% of patients were socially the continent (≤1 pad per day) and > 95% had sufficient erections for intercourse. Limitations of the study were the small number of patients, the lack of the control group using a perineal approach for AUS placement and only a 12 months follow-up. IPP and AUS dual implantation using a single scrotal incision technique is a safe and effective option in patients with SUI and ED after RP. Further studies on larger numbers of patients are warranted.

Is prolonged catheterization a risk factor for artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative risk of prolonged urethral catheterization (PC), >48 hours, on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) cuff erosion in a tertiary referral population.

METHODS

All men who had undergone AUS implantation or revision by multiple surgeons at our institution from 2000 to 2010 with ≥6 months of follow-up were reviewed for urethral erosion, catheterization after AUS placement, and comorbid conditions.

RESULTS

Of the 258 AUS patients reviewed, 200 met the inclusion criteria, with an average follow-up of 24 months. AUS cuff erosions were noted in 24 men (12%) and were diagnosed at a mean of 16.9 months (range 0.8-87.1). PC was identified in 44 of the 200 men (22%)-of these men, erosions occurred in 17 (39%, P <.001). The indication for PC was most often major nongenitourinary surgery (36%) or urinary retention (32%). Univariate analysis identified an increased risk of erosion associated with hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, PC, previous radiotherapy, and secondary AUS placement (P <.05). On multivariate analysis, only PC, radiotherapy, and revision surgery were significant (P <.05), but cuff size and concomitant inflatable penile prosthesis were not associated with AUS cuff erosion.

CONCLUSION

PC is an independent risk factor for AUS cuff erosion.

Simultaneous penile prosthesis and male sling/artificial urinary sphincter

Erectile dysfunction (ED) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) from urethral sphincteric deficiency is not an uncommon problem. The commonest etiology is intervention for localized prostate cancer and/or radical cystoprostatectomy for muscle invasive bladder cancer. Despite advances in surgical technology with robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and nerve sparing techniques, the rates of ED and SUI remain relatively unchanged. They both impact greatly on quality of life domains and have been associated with poor performance outcomes. Both the artificial urinary sphincter and penile prosthesis are gold standard treatments with proven efficacy, satisfaction and durability for end-stage SUI and ED respectively. Simultaneous prosthesis implantation for concurrent conditions has been well described, mostly in small retrospective series. The uptake of combination surgery has been slow due in part to technical demands of the surgery and to an extent, a heightened anxiety over potential complications. This paper aims to discuss the technical aspect of concurrent surgery for both disease entity and the current published outcomes of the various surgical techniques with this approach.

Dual implantation of artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prostheses for concurrent male urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction

Erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence secondary to sphincter dysfunction are common conditions affecting many men worldwide with a negative effect on quality of life. They are encountered in a number of etiologies most commonly following radical prostatectomy in which they coexist in the same patient. Implantations of an artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis have proven to be effective in the treatment of both conditions should conservative and minimally invasive measures fail. The recent literature has shown that dual implantation of these devices is feasible and safe with a durable clinical outcome. Once indicated, this can be done in a synchronous or nonsynchronous manner; however, the emerging of the single transverse scrotal incision as well as advancement in the prostheses has made synchronous dual implantation more favourable and appealing option. It provides time and cost savings with an evidence of high patient satisfaction. Synchronous dual implantation should be offered initially when indicated. This paper discusses the surgical techniques of artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis dual implantation in the management of concurrent moderate-to-severe urinary incontinence and medically refractive erectile dysfunction, in addition to highlighting the existing literature pertaining to this approach.

Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of followup

PURPOSE

Although some studies suggest that most infections associated with inflatable penile prosthesis implantation develop within year 1 after surgery, device related infections have been reported 5 years after implantation or later and the infection risk with time is not well characterized. We previously reported a statistically significantly lower infection rate for original inflatable penile prostheses impregnated with antibiotic treatment with minocycline and rifampin vs nonimpregnated inflatable penile prostheses at 1-year followup. Long-term data are now available on infection revision after initial implantation of antibiotic impregnated vs nonimpregnated prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patient information forms voluntarily filed with the manufacturer after the initial implantation of more than 39,000 inflatable penile prostheses to compare the revision rate due to infection for antibiotic impregnated vs nonimpregnated implants between May 1, 2001 and December 31, 2008. Life table analysis was used to evaluate device survival from revision surgery.

RESULTS

On life table survival analysis initial revision events due to infection were significantly less common in the impregnated vs the nonimpregnated group (log rank p <0.0001). At up to 7.7 years of followup 1.1% of 35,737 vs 2.5% of 3,268 men with impregnated vs nonimpregnated implants underwent initial revision due to infection.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge this long-term outcome analysis provides the first substantial clinical evidence of a decrease in costly infection related revision using an antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis.

[Initial experience combinating transobturator male sling and penile implant after radical prostatectomy]

PURPOSE

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and erectile dysfunction (ED) are two major complications following radical prostatectomy (RP). In case of failure of medical treatment, Advance™ retrourethral male sling and penile implant are validated options to manage respectively SUI and ED. Our goal was to assess the feasibility and results of the combination of these two devices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four patients were treated for SUI and DE following RP in our institution by retrourethral sling and penile prosthesis, after failure of medical management. Each patient was preoperatively evaluated by age, complete medical history, ASA score, endoscopy, pad-test, and urodynamics. The first two patients were implanted with the two devices in a two-stage procedure: retrourethral sling then penile prosthesis for one, and penile prosthesis then retrourethral sling for the other. The two other patients underwent a one-stage procedure: one received the two devices, and the other had retrourethral sling implantation and replacement of a penile prosthesis. Post-operative follow-up was focused on complications and efficacy (evaluated by pad use and PGI-I questionnaire for continence, and patient auto-evaluation for sexual function).

RESULTS

No perioperative complication occurred. After a minimum of 6 months follow-up, all the four patients were pad-free with no leakage reported, feeling very much better after the procedure according to the PGI-I. The four patients were fully satisfied of the penile implant device.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our initial experience, surgery combining the transobturator Advance male sling and a penile prosthesis is feasible, successively or simultaneously, and leads to excellent functional results with no complications.

[Asynchronous implantation of a penile prosthesis (AMS 700) in patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AMS 800): what functional outcomes can we expect from the AMS 1500?]

OBJECTIVE

To report the functional results and morbidity after metachronous implantation of an AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and an AMS 700 inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From the 250 patients treated in our department between 2000 and 2011 for the insertion of an AUS, we retrospectively selected patients who also underwent implantation of an IPP. The following data were recorded: age, aetiology of urinary incontinence (UI) and erectile dysfunction (ED), treatment history of UI/ED, date of insertion of the AUS and the IPP and time gap between the two implants. We evaluated both the pad-test and the number of protective pads used per day, before and after AUS insertion. We also analysed the IIEF5 score before and after IPP. Patients were reviewed at 3, 6 and 12 months and annually thereafter.

RESULTS

In total, five patients were included. The median age was 69 years. The median follow-up after IPP was 22.6 months and the time gap between the two implants was 50 months. The aetiology of UI and ED was prostate surgery in four cases. Complete continence without leakage was observed in three patients and the IIEF5 score increased from 6.6 preoperatively to 22.2 for four patients. One patient developed a urethral erosion of the AUS cuff 6 months after implantation of the IPP. The AUS cuff has been explanted but the patient remains continent with the IPP cylinders semi-inflated.

CONCLUSION

From our small study, it appears that the combined use of an AMS 800 AUS and an AMS 700 IPP was a feasible and efficacious option in patients with concomitant refractory UI and ED.

Outcomes of simultaneous placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis and a male urethral sling through a single perineal incision

INTRODUCTION

Synchronous implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and a bulbourethral sling single via a single perineal is a unique approach in managing erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence.

AIM

This article describes our surgical approach and reviews the operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and cost of synchronous dual prosthetic implantation compared with the implants performed individually. Additionally, we review the short-term outcomes in patients with dual sling and penile prosthesis synchronous implants.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients with IPP, 53 slings, and eight simultaneous dual implantations between January 2000 and July 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Operative times, EBL, length of stay, cost, and complications were compared in three groups (group 1, IPP; group 2, slings; group 3, dual implants). Additionally, we reviewed pre- and postoperative Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) scores and pad use in group 3.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Review of operative times, EBL, LOS, cost, and complications.

RESULTS

Dual implantation had similar operative times compared with the total time for the individual procedures (98 +/- 24 minutes for IPP; 86 +/- 24 minutes for sling; 177 +/- 17 minutes for dual implant, P > 0.05). EBL was reduced (57 +/- 30 mL for IPP; 48 +/- 59 mL for sling; 49 +/- 5 mL for group 3). LOS was also reduced (1.2 +/- 0.45 days for IPP, 0.7 +/- 0.48 days for sling; and 1.1 +/- 0.50 days for dual implant). Dual implantation was associated with approximately $9,000 in savings. With a mean follow-up of 13.6 months, group 3 reported SHIM increase from 1.3 +/- 0.5 to 23.5 +/- 0.6 and a decrease in pad use from three pads per day (range 2-6) down to a mean of one pad per day (range 0-2). One sling erosion and one sling infection occurred in group 2. One patient in group 3 had acute urinary retention resolved with 5 days of catheter drainage.

CONCLUSION

Dual penile prosthesis and bulbourethral sling implantation through a single perineal incision is safe, efficient, and cost-effective.

Dual implantation of penile and sphincter implants in the post-prostatectomy patient

Despite major improvement in surgical techniques for radical pelvic surgery, including radical prostatectomy, major quality-of-life issues persist, such as postoperative erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. These two conditions have many common etiologies and often occur in the same patient. Patients with either of these conditions fail initial conservative or minimally invasive therapy and become candidates for prosthetic implants, such as artificial urinary sphincter and penile prosthesis. In the past three decades, there have been significant improvements in the mechanical properties of these devices, their functional capabilities, and surgical implantation techniques. Studies once suggested that implantation of both devices in one patient could lead to failure, but recent literature proves that patients benefit from simultaneous dual implantation. Specific benefits relate to shorter surgery time, with potentially lower infection rates. In this manuscript, we review the indications, techniques, merits, and safety of simultaneous dual implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter and penile prosthesis in the post-radical prostatectomy patient.