Pseudo-malfunction of the Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis One-Touch Release Pump

Mechanical indications for inflatable penile prosthesis revision: analysis and implications for revision surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite technical advancements, inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) are inherently at risk of mechanical failure given their nature as hydraulic devices.

AIM

To characterize IPP component failure location at the time of device revision and stratify by manufacturer: American Medical Systems (Boston Scientific [BSCI]) and Coloplast (CP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of penile prosthesis cases from July 2007 to May 2022 was conducted, identifying men who underwent revision surgery. Cases were excluded if documentation did not denote the cause of failure or the manufacturer. Mechanical indications for surgery were categorized by location (eg, tubing, cylinder, or reservoir leak; pump malfunction). Nonmechanical revisions were excluded (component herniation, erosion, or crossover). Categorical variables were assessed with Fisher exact or chi-square analysis; Student t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for continuous variables.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes included specific location of IPP mechanical failure among BSCI and CP devices and time to mechanical failure.

RESULTS

We identified 276 revision procedures, 68 of which met inclusion criteria (46 BSCI and 22 CP). Revised CP devices were longer than BSCI devices (median cylinder length, 20 vs 18 cm; P < .001). Log-rank analysis revealed a similar time to mechanical failure between brands (P = .096). CP devices failed most often due to tubing fracture (19/22, 83%). BSCI devices had no predominant site of failure. Between manufacturers, tubing failure was more common in CP devices (19/22 vs 15/46 for BSCI, P < .001), while cylinder failure was more common among BSCI devices (10/46 vs 0/22 for CP, P = .026).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The distribution of mechanical failure is significantly different between BSCI and CP devices; this has implications regarding the approach to revision surgery.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This is the first study to directly compare when and where mechanical failure occurs in IPPs and to compare the 2 main manufacturers head-to-head. This study would be strengthened by being repeated in a multi-institutional fashion to provide more robust and objective evaluation.

CONCLUSION

CP devices commonly failed at the tubing and rarely elsewhere, while BSCI devices showed no predominant failure site; these findings may inform decision making regarding revision surgery.

Technological Advances in Penile Implant Surgery

BACKGROUND

During the last century, surgical management of erectile dysfunction has evolved from an experimental concept to a core treatment modality with widespread use among the men's health community. Over time, innovations in materials, mechanical design elements, device coatings, and surgical technique have provided patients with low-risk, reliable, and reproducible erectile function with high satisfaction rates.

AIM

To provide a foundation for future innovation by improving understanding of historical penile prosthetics and the rationale behind incremental technological improvements for the contemporary Men's Health physician.

METHODS

Literature review was conducted to generate a comprehensive review of historical technological innovations in penile implant surgery. Companies with FDA approved penile prosthetics in use in the United States were contacted for information regarding technological innovations in the past and future devices in development. A separate literature review was performed to identify any significant future device design elements being tested, even in the ex vivo setting, which may have future clinical applications.

OUTCOMES

Technological innovations in penile implant surgery were described.

RESULTS

Current options for the prosthetic surgeon include malleable penile prostheses (MPP), self-contained (2-piece) inflatable penile prostheses, and multicomponent (3-piece) inflatable penile prostheses. Current MPPs consist of a synthetic coated solid core which allow for manipulation of the penis for concealability while maintaining sufficient axial rigidity to achieve penetration when desired. Multi-component (3-Piece) IPPs currently include the Coloplast Titan and Boston Scientific/AMS 700 which consist of a fluid reservoir, intrascrotal pump, and intracavernosal cylinders. The devices have undergone numerous design updates to the cylinders, pump, reservoir, tubing, and external coatings to increase reliability and decrease short- and long-term complications.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Future innovations in penile prosthetic surgery seek to broaden the indications and applicability to the transgender community and improve both safety and functionality for patient and partner.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

The review is limited primarily to penile prosthetics approved for current or historical clinical use in the United States and may not be representative of the global prosthetic environment. Additionally, the research and development of future innovations, particularly those provided by device manufacturers, is likely limited by non-disclosure to maintain a competitive advantage.

CONCLUSIONS

Penile prosthetic surgery will undoubtedly remain integral to the treatment of erectile dysfunction, and education regarding the current state of technological innovation will empower the prosthetic surgeon and biomedical engineering community to improve contemporary patient care and drive the development of the next generation of implantable penile prosthetics. Barnard JT, Cakir OO, Ralph D, et al. Technological Advances in Penile Implant Surgery. J Sex Med 2021;18:1158-1166.

Revision Surgery for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP): A Single-Center Experience and Pictorial Representation

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate factors influencing Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP) revision and describe outcomes associated with revision surgery.

METHODS

A single surgeon, retrospective review of all patients who underwent IPP revision between 2008-2016, was performed. Patient age, BMI, operative duration, blood loss, hospital duration, time from most recent penile implant to revision surgery, etiology of revision, and whether the patient had a prior failed revision surgery were all collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients, who had undergone IPP revision between the years 2008-2016, with at least 3 years of follow-up, were included in the investigation. Mean patient age and BMI were 68 and 29.2 kg/m², respectively. The mean time between the most recent implant operation to revision was 8.4 years. Four patients (7%) reported IPP revision failure within a 3-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

IPP revision demonstrates a relatively high success rate, in the short term, and should be offered to patients as a safe and effective option.

"Pumpology": the Realistic Issues Associated with Pump Placement in Prosthetic Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper was to discuss the issues and/or overt complications associated with the 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (3-IPP) pump. We also addressed how to resolve such issues with or without surgical intervention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous modifications of the 3-IPP pump have been introduced with multiple techniques to place the pump. These are largely dependent on the approach to place the 3-IPP. Pump issues may inevitably occur, and there are numerous special maneuvers that can be performed to resolve pump issues. It is important for urologists to know maneuvers for pump malfunctions to prevent unnecessary surgical procedures and pump revision. Several studies are reviewed regarding pump issues and patient satisfaction; however, a more structured prospective research project is warranted to further evaluate these issues.

Innovating Incrementally: Development of the Modern Inflatable Penile Prosthesis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) was introduced in 1973. Since that time, the fundamental design of the IPP has not changed, but numerous improvements to the device, surgery, and peri-operative management have resulted in a modern IPP with excellent reliability, infection control, safety profile, and user experience.

RECENT FINDINGS

We describe important modifications to the IPP and review available data assessing the impact of these changes. We also discuss possible changes to the IPP that would result in continued improvement. Since its introduction in 1973, changes to the penile prosthesis have resulted in significant improvements in reliability, infection control, safety, and user experience. Design changes are anticipated to continue, resulting in a better and more versatile penile prosthesis.