Penile prosthesis surgery in the treatment of impotence in the immunosuppressed man

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patients with solid organ transplant (SOT) are at higher risk of developing complications after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed outcomes data for all patients with SOT who underwent IPP placement at our institution. A cohort of age-matched IPP recipients without SOT were used as controls.

RESULTS

We identified 26 patients who underwent SOT and IPP between 1999 and 2015, and 26 controls. Transplants included heart (3), liver (2), kidney only (17), and kidney and pancreas (4). Mean follow-up time after IPP placement was 29.5 months (SOT group) and 13.5 months (controls). Age at IPP did not significantly differ between groups (53.7 + 8.1 vs 56.4 + 9.0, P = .26), nor did body mass index (30.3 + 5.5 vs 30.2 + 4.7, P = .92), history of prostatectomy (7.7% vs 15.4%, P = .39), rectal surgery (3.9% vs 3.9%, P = 1.00), hyperlipidemia (69.2% vs 69.2%, P = 1.00), hypertension (92.3% vs 76.9%, P = .25), or heart disease (57.7% vs 30.8%, P = .093). Peripheral vascular disease was more common in transplant patients (26.9% vs 3.9%, P = .021), as were stroke (19.2% vs 0.0%, P = .05) and diabetes (84.6% vs 53.6%, P = .016). No significant differences in IPP reoperation rates existed between patients with vs without SOT (11.5% vs 11.5%, P = 1.00), nor did they differ by organ transplanted (P = 1.00). No differences in IPP reoperation rate existed between 2-piece vs 3-piece IPP models (P = .47).

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of IPP implantation in patients with SOT are similar to those of nontransplant patients. Patients with SOT should be considered suitable candidates for penile prosthesis.

The Prevention and Management of Noninfectious Complications of Penile Implants

INTRODUCTION

Penile implants have been a mainstay in the treatment of erectile dysfunction for more than four decades. The satisfaction rate with the functioning of these devices has been very high. Problems can develop with the device itself or with the tissues surrounding it. Knowledge of preventing and managing these adverse events is critical to a successful outcome and sustained patient satisfaction.

AIM

A narrative of the prevention and management of noninfectious complications of penile implant placement gained from the author's extensive experience is presented.

METHODS

Each category of penile implant complications is presented as a separate subtitle. The initial categories are intraoperative problems; the subsequent groups involve postoperative adverse events.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

To gather information for this manuscript, I reviewed 40 publications and found 32 relevant and helpful.

RESULTS

Attending to the details necessary for proper placement of prosthetic parts during the initial surgery will minimize the chance of problems developing. Prompt attention to postoperative problems will thwart their progression to a more extensive adverse situation, which will be more difficult to remedy.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications during penile implant placement and in the postoperative period may occur. Knowledge of maneuvers to avoid their occurrence and prompt attention to correcting problems as they arise are paramount to a successful outcome and to maintaining high satisfaction rates. Mulcahy JJ. The prevention and management of noninfectious complications of penile implants. Sex Med Rev 2015;3:203-213.

Current approach to the treatment of penile implant infections

Modern penile implants, introduced to the market almost four decades ago, have provided a predictable and reliable treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) despite the development of less-invasive therapies. Infection associated with the placement of these devices does occur, and with prophylactic measures and protocols the incidence has decreased fortunately. In the presence of an infection the implant and all foreign material should be removed. A salvage procedure, during which the wound is thoroughly washed with antiseptic solutions after device removal and placement of a new implant during the same procedure, has a high success rate and is becoming a popular approach. The alternative, device removal with return at a later date for placing a new implant, entails a more difficult corporal dilation, and the resulting erection is noticeably shorter. Patient and partner satisfaction with a penile implant is the highest among all of the treatments for ED.

Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Kidney-Transplanted Patients

Most kidney transplantations are performed on middle-aged men for whom problems of sexual potency are still of great importance. Although a functional renal graft improves the problem in some patients and others resolve with oral or intracavernous therapy, about 20% of patients do not have a good response. In non-responders, tricomponent penile prosthesis implantation is possible. In the last 10 years we have implanted with no complications 7 tricomponent AMS 700 prostheses in patients not otherwise responding. Our good results confirm that patients with kidney transplantation should be considered good candidates to the penile prosthesis if the erectile dysfunction persists after different therapies.

Penile implant infections: prevention and treatment

Penile implants remain a mainstay in treating erectile dysfunction (ED). Despite competing therapies, the number of devices implanted has increased each year. Implant infection continues to be a problem, but recent advances in antibiotic-coated devices and copious use of antiseptic irrigation have reduced the incidence. When confronted with an implant infection, a salvage procedure has gained acceptance that involves immediate replacement of the infected implant after antiseptic washing of the implant cavities. This procedure minimizes shortening of the implant erection and facilitates placement of cylinders in corporal bodies. Among patients and health care providers, satisfaction with penile implant remains the highest for all ED treatments.

Penile prosthesis in the organ transplant recipient

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pelvic organ transplant recipients are at a higher risk of developing complications after placement of a penile prosthesis relative to those receiving a penile prosthesis who did not undergo pelvic organ transplantation.

METHODS

Two hundred eleven men underwent placement of a penile prosthesis by a single urologist at our institution between July 1994 and March 2000. Of these, 46 patients had undergone pelvic organ transplantation before placement of the penile prosthesis. The average time from transplantation was 43 months. The average follow-up after prosthesis placement was 23 months. These patients were monitored for various complications, including infection, malfunction, autoinflation, and injury to the prosthesis. They were compared with a cohort of men who had had a prosthesis placed but had not received pelvic organ transplantation.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was significantly higher in the transplant patients (22%) than in the nontransplant patients (7.9%) receiving prostheses (P <0.01). Infection was seen in 2 transplant patients (4.3%) and in 7 nontransplant patients (4.2%) (P <1). Malfunction occurred in 4 of the transplant patients (8.7%) and 6 of the nontransplant patients (3.6%) (P <0.2). In those patients with a prosthesis malfunction, 9 of 10 involved a three-piece prosthesis. All four malfunctions in the transplant group occurred in three-piece prostheses. The difference in the rate of malfunction was statistically significant (P <0.001) when comparing the three-piece prosthesis in the transplant and nontransplant patients (P <0.001). Surgical injury to the retroperitoneal reservoir occurred in 4 transplant patients (8.7%) (all with three-piece prostheses) and in none of the nontransplant patients (P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of infection after insertion of penile prostheses in patients with pelvic organ transplantation was similar to that in nontransplant patients. The risk of malfunction and injury to the prosthesis (three-piece) was higher in transplant patients. The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients after transplantation and can be attributed to the reservoir complications related to three-piece prostheses. In patients with a prosthesis that did not have a retroperitoneal reservoir, no significant difference in the overall complication rate was observed. Pelvic organ transplant recipients in whom traditional conservative therapy for erectile dysfunction fails should be considered candidates for penile prosthesis placement. However, three-piece prostheses should be avoided, as these patients are best served with prostheses that do not require a retroperitoneal reservoir.

Management of prosthesis infections in urologic surgery

Prosthetic devices are a cornerstone of urologic surgical care. The most disastrous complication of these surgical procedures is infection. The prevention, identification, and management of infections are critical to maintaining functional urologic prosthetic devices. Although the incidence is low, rapid identification of infections once they occur and proper management with antibiotics, surgical intervention, irrigation, and salvage procedures can maintain the function of urologic prosthetic devices despite clinical infection.

Artificial urinary sphincter insertion in renal transplant recipients

The prosthetic urinary sphincter has contributed significantly to the improved management of urinary incontinence during the past 25 years. However, the safety of these devices in immunosuppressed patients is not well reported. We describe the successful insertion of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter in two renal transplant recipients.

Treatment of erectile dysfunction after kidney transplantation with intracavernosal self-injection of prostaglandin E1

PURPOSE

We evaluate the results of treatment of erectile dysfunction in kidney transplant patients with intracavernosal self-injection of vasoactive drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated and treated 26 male kidney transplant patients for erectile dysfunction. All patients had stable kidney function 6 to 75 months (mean 26.6 +/- 9) after transplantation. Each patient received an intracavernosal injection of 20 microg. prostaglandin E1 (PGE1), and after 20 to 30 minutes the response was assessed. Nonresponders received 40 microg. PGE1 at another visit, and those who showed no response were reinjected with 40 microg. PGE1 plus 30 mg. papaverine hydrochloride. A total of 21 patients were enrolled in a self-injection program and have been followed between 3 and 21 months (mean 11.6 +/- 2.7).

RESULTS

Hormonal alterations were seen in 7 patients with serum testosterone as low as 16.6 ng./ml. (normal 33 to 100), and testosterone injections gave only marginal response in 2. Intracavernosal injection of 20 microg. PGE1 provided good response in 15 patients (57.7%), while 40 microg. PGE1 alone or in combination with 30 mg. papaverine resulted in good response in another 6 and 2 patients, respectively. Among the 21 patients who were enrolled in the self-injection program 19 (90.5%) reported complete satisfaction with no adverse local or systemic complications except for local pain at the injection site in 4. There has been no change in serum creatinine, cyclosporine level or doses of immunosuppression medications during the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Intracavernosal self-injection of PGE1 is well accepted and tolerated by kidney transplant patients. It poses no apparent risks to the transplanted kidney and could be a good modality to treat erectile dysfunction in kidney transplant recipients.

Treatment of organic impotence with penile prosthesis in renal transplant patients

Seven patients were identified who underwent both renal transplantation and penile prosthesis implantation at our institution between June 1980 and June 1990, and their charts were retrospectively reviewed. A total of nine penile prostheses were placed in these patients, five prior to transplantation and four following transplantation. One patient received two prostheses prior to transplantation. One patient received a prosthesis both before and after transplantation. No complications were seen in the four prostheses placed following transplantation with a follow-up of one to forty months (mean 18 months). Of the five prostheses placed prior to transplantation, two were removed due to periprosthetic infections, a cylinder leak developed in one, and one was complicated by penile and scrotal erythema with sepsis.

Successful implantation of penile prostheses in organ transplant patients

We present our experience with implantation of penile prostheses in 6 organ transplant recipients, including 2 patients after renal transplantation and 4 patients after cardiac transplantation. We have seen no problems related to prosthesis surgery in this patient population, and in particular have experienced no infectious complications. All patients received strict perioperative antibiotic and steroid coverage. We conclude that erectile impotence in the male organ transplant patient can be successfully treated with penile prosthesis surgery without incurring undue morbidity and with considerable benefit in terms of quality of life in a generally young patient population.

Renal transplantation in a patient with an artificial urinary sphincter device

Use of the artificial urinary sphincter device has become widespread. We describe the successful transplantation of a renal allograft into a recipient with an artificial urinary sphincter. Pretransplant placement of a sphincter, intraoperative avoidance of the prosthetic device and proper urinary drainage perioperatively make the artificial urinary sphincter device a feasible means to provide continence in a renal transplant recipient.