Penile Prosthesis in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients-A Matched Cohort Study

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.

Current treatment options for erectile dysfunction in kidney transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION

Erectile dysfunction (ED) and kidney dysfunction share common risk factors linked to conditions involving endothelial impairment, such as coronary artery disease, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, smoking, and obesity. Men with chronic kidney disease experience a high incidence and prevalence of ED. While a functional renal graft can alleviate the issue for some patients, a significant portion of recipients still experience ED (20%-50%).

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review describes the variety of current treatments modalities on ED in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) and their clinical outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar were used to find eligible articles pertaining to the treatment options of ED in KTRs. A total of 64 articles were evaluated.

RESULTS

In KTRs, ED stems from a multifaceted etiology: anxiety, drug side effects, interference with penile vascularity, or the response of cavernosal muscle to neurotransmitters, along with changes in the endocrine milieu. A diverse range of treatments to restore erectile function has proven to be safe and effective for KTRs. Options include drug therapy, surgical interventions, intracavernosal injection therapies, vacuum erection devices, and extracorporeal shockwave therapy.

CONCLUSION

The initial treatment approach may involve the use of a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors at a low dosage, especially if testosterone-circulating levels align with the diagnosis of hypogonadism. The consideration of a combination therapy involving testosterone and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors should be contemplated due to the associated beneficial effects. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy has shown positive short-term clinical and physiological effects on erectile function in patients who did not respond to first-line treatments, resulting in spontaneous erections sufficient for sexual penetration in 50% of cases. Penile implants should be considered as third-line options based on specific patient needs and compliance with clinical conditions.

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.

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.

Current Status for Semirigid Penile Prosthetic Devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper was to evaluate the current use of semirigid penile prosthesis (SRPP), surgical techniques for insertion of SRPP, and how to prevent and approach surgical complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

SRPP is a valid option for those who are refractory to medical therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) and even more appropriate for specific subsets of patient populations. It is important for urologists to know which patient population SRPP is preferred for. Several studies have shown good patient outcomes and patient satisfaction with those who underwent SRPP.

Updates in penile prosthesis infections

Inflatable penile prostheses are an important tool in the treatment of medically refractory erectile dysfunction. One of the major complications associated with these prostheses is infections, which ultimately require device explanation and placement of a new device. Over the past several decades, significant work has been done to reduce infection rates and optimize treatment strategies to reduce patient morbidity. This article reviews the current state of knowledge surrounding penile prosthesis infections, with attention to the evidence for methods to prevent infection and best practices for device reimplantation.

Postoperative outcomes of kidney transplant recipients undergoing non-transplant-related elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Reliable estimates of the absolute and relative risks of postoperative complications in kidney transplant recipients undergoing elective surgery are needed to inform clinical practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the odds of both fatal and non-fatal postoperative outcomes in kidney transplant recipients following elective surgery compared to non-transplanted patients.

Methods

Systematic searches were performed through Embase and MEDLINE databases to identify relevant studies from inception to January 2020. Risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and quality of evidence was summarised in accordance with GRADE methodology (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation). Random effects meta-analysis was performed to derive summary risk estimates of outcomes. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity.

Results

Fourteen studies involving 14,427 kidney transplant patients were eligible for inclusion. Kidney transplant recipients had increased odds of postoperative mortality; cardiac surgery (OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.9–2.5), general surgery (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3–4.0) compared to non-transplanted patients. The magnitude of the mortality odds was increased in the presence of diabetes mellitus. Acute kidney injury was the most frequently reported non-fatal complication whereby kidney transplant recipients had increased odds compared to their non-transplanted counterparts. The odds for acute kidney injury was highest following orthopaedic surgery (OR 15.3, 95% CI 3.9–59.4). However, there was no difference in the odds of stroke and pneumonia.

Conclusion

Kidney transplant recipients are at increased odds for postoperative mortality and acute kidney injury following elective surgery. This review also highlights the urgent need for further studies to better inform perioperative risk assessment to assist in planning perioperative care.

A Systematic Review of Penile Prosthesis Surgery in Organ Transplant Recipients

INTRODUCTION

There is an increased prevalence of erectile dysfunction in patients with solid organ transplant (SOT) compared with the general population. Many of these patients may become refractory to medical treatment of erectile dysfunction and penile prosthesis (PP) is often recommended. Concerns regarding the safety of PP in patients with SOT are due to their immunosuppressed state.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to review all current literature on the outcomes of patients with SOT who have received PP.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed to identify articles pertaining to the outcomes of PP in patients with SOT.

RESULTS

We identified and included 14 studies that report on outcomes of PP placement in 143 patients with SOT and 191 non-SOT controls from interval period from 1979 to 2019. Studies included retrospective cohort studies, case series, and case reports. Compared with non-SOT controls who had PP, aggregate analysis demonstrated that patients with SOT who had PP did not develop significantly increased overall complications. However, they were significantly more likely to experience future surgical complications.

CONCLUSION

Our aggregate analysis demonstrated that patients with SOT are not at a significantly increased risk of overall complications when receiving a PP. Nevertheless, there is an increased risk of experiencing PP injury during subsequent surgeries, which may be mitigated by the earlier involvement of a urologist. Given the lack of recent data, large studies are prerequisite to further evaluate the safety and overall outcome of PP surgery in patients with SOT. Dick B, Greenberg JW, Polchert M, et al. A Systematic Review of Penile Prosthesis Surgery in Organ Transplant Recipients. Sex Med Rev 2021;9:636-640.

Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with infection in patients who undergo penile prosthesis implantation.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review/meta-analysis, including clinical trials, quasi-experiments, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and case-control studies. Searching was done in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. Participants were patients who had erectile dysfunction, regardless of the etiology, and underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Two researchers reviewed each reference by title and abstract. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan® 5.3).

RESULTS

A total of 513 studies were found with the search strategies. After excluding duplicates, 40 studies with a total of 175,592 patients were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among patient characteristics, we found that diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression appear to have increase odds of infection. Related to the procedure, infection-retardant-coated penile prosthesis and primary (first) surgery appear to lower odds of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression were associated with increased infection rates; infection-retardant coating of the prosthesis and primary surgery were associated with reduced infection rates.

Clinical Recommendations From the European Society for Sexual Medicine Exploring Partner Expectations, Satisfaction in Male and Phalloplasty Cohorts, the Impact of Penile Length, Girth and Implant Type, Reservoir Placement, and the Influence of Comorbidities and Social Circumstances

INTRODUCTION

To date, several aspects of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgical procedure have been poorly studied.

AIM

The aim of this study was to review the evidence associated with IPP implantation and provide clinical recommendations on behalf of the European Society for Sexual Medicine (ESSM). Overall, 130 peer-reviewed studies and systematic reviews, which were published from 2007-2018 in the English language, were included.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and open-label prospective and retrospective studies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The panel provided statements exploring patients and partner expectations, satisfaction in male and phalloplasty cohorts, the impact of penile length, girth and implant type, reservoir placement, the influence of comorbidities, and social circumstances. Levels of evidence were provided according to the Oxford 2011 criteria and graded as for the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine recommendations.

RESULTS

In the preoperative setting, it is fundamental to identify and interact with difficult patients with the intention of enhancing the surgeon's ability to establish the surgeon-patient relationship, reduce physical and legal risk, as well as enhancing patient satisfaction. To address this need, the mnemonic Compulsive, Unrealistic, Revision, Surgeon Shopping, Entitled, Denial, and Psychiatric ("CURSED") has been suggested to identify patients who are at high risk of dissatisfaction. The current recommendations suggest improving glycemic control in patients with diabetes. Available evidence suggests evaluating transplant recipients with the criteria of Barry, consisting of stable graft function for >6 months, avoidance of intra-abdominal reservoir placement, and low-dose immunosuppression. HIV status does not represent a contraindication for surgery. Smoking, peripheral vascular disease, and hypertension may be associated with an increased risk of revision surgery. Patients with spinal cord injury may receive IPP. Patients aged ≥70 years, as well as obese patients, can be offered IPP. The IPP implantation can be performed in patients with stable Peyronie's disease. Ectopic high submuscular reservoir placement can be considered as an alternative method.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

There is a relevant lack of high-level data and definite conclusions in certain areas remain difficult to draw.

STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS

All studies have been evaluated by a panel of experts providing recommendations for clinical practice. Because of lack of sufficient prospective data, some of the included studies are retrospective and this could be stated as a limitation.

CONCLUSION

This ESSM position statement provides recommendations on optimization of patient outcome by patient selection, and individualized peri- and intra-operative management. ESSM encourages centers to collaborate and to create prospective, multicenter registries in order to address this topic of increasing importance. Osmonov D, Christopher AN, Blecher GA, et al. Clinical Recommendations from the European Society for Sexual Medicine Exploring Partner Expectations, Satisfaction in Male and Phalloplasty Cohorts, the Impact of Penile Length, Girth and Implant Type, Reservoir Placement, and the Influence of Comorbidities and Social Circumstances. J Sex Med 2020;17:210-237.

The Prevalence and Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction in Male Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

INTRODUCTION

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a prevalent and under-recognized complaint among male solid organ transplant recipients. Most research on this topic has focused on kidney transplant recipients alone. In this review, we integrate current research on ED across all types of solid organ transplant recipients and assess the success of current methods of ED treatment in transplant populations.

AIM

To review the current literature addressing the prevalence and treatment of ED in the male solid organ transplant population.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify relevant studies. Search terms included "organ transplant" and "erectile dysfunction." Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance. References from identified articles were also searched and included, if appropriate.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Review of peer-reviewed literature.

RESULTS

The prevalence of ED among transplant recipients is higher than that in the general population: 39.8-86.2% in liver transplant recipients, 54-66% in renal transplant recipients, 71-78% in heart transplant recipients, and 79% in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant recipients. Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors have up to 80% efficacy in treating ED in kidney transplant recipients. Intracavernosal injections have been used with success rates of 60-70% in cardiac and renal transplant recipients. Penile prostheses have also been shown to be safe and effective across transplant types. A low incidence of infection has been reported in several case series, although there is concern for an increased rate of mechanical complications in pelvic organ transplant recipients. Accordingly, placement of a two-piece or malleable prosthesis or ectopic reservoir placement with a three-piece inflatable prosthesis is suggested in this population.

CONCLUSION

ED is highly prevalent among male solid organ transplant recipients and should be routinely screened in this population. Current modalities of ED treatment used in the general population are safe and effective in solid organ transplant recipients, although success rates are often lower than those in the general population. Payne K, Popat S, Lipshultz LI, et al. The Prevalence and Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction in Male Solid Organ Transplant Recipients. Sex Med Rev 2021;9:331-339.

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.

Penile Implant Considerations in the Bladder Cancer Survivor

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

After radical cystoprostatectomy, patients often develop erectile dysfunction refractory to first- and second-line treatments. In this review, we summarize and analyze the literature describing the technical considerations and outcomes of penile implant surgery in bladder cancer patients with history of radical cystectomy and urinary diversion.

RECENT FINDINGS

Penile prosthesis surgery in patients after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion has been infrequently described in the literature. Recent studies have shown that the three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis can be placed safely after significant prior intraabdominal surgery due to the development and refinement of several techniques to place the reservoir. Further studies are needed to objectively determine the impact of penile prosthetic surgery on functional outcomes in this historically undertreated yet increasingly significant patient population. As health-related quality of life outcomes continue to gain increasing importance after radical cystectomy, urologists should offer motivated bladder cancer survivors the inflatable penile prosthesis as the treatment of choice for refractory erectile dysfunction due to its safety and unmatched ability to restore erectile function.

Does Solid Organ Transplantation Affect Male Reproduction?

Patients undergoing solid organ transplantation have experienced increased graft survival rates over the past several decades. With increased longevity making fatherhood a viable option, many patients desire to pursue this path. However, many patients and practitioners are likely unaware of the feasibility and safety for a man on a transplant immunosuppression regimen to safely pursue fatherhood. In this review, we discuss effects of organ transplantation and post-transplantation treatment on male hormones, fertility, and the risk to potential offspring. Briefly, providers should be aware that organ transplant recipients may be at an increased risk for hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction, but fathering a child is a realistic and safe aspiration. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this mini-review, we discuss the effects of solid organ transplantation (such as lung, heart, kidney, and liver) on a man's sexual health, and his ability to have children. We focus on the most common problems encountered by patients after their transplant, and the effects of medications.