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

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.

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.

Revisiting the penoscrotal approach to artificial urinary sphincter surgery: how does it compare to a perineal incision for initial implantation?

PURPOSE

Artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) remain the gold standard to treat male stress urinary incontinence. AUS implantation can be performed through a penoscrotal or perineal incision depending on surgeon preference.

METHODS

The present study compares initial AUS implantation through two surgical approaches focusing on outcomes of continence and revision. All AUS implanted at an academic medical center between 2000 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 225 AUS implantations were identified, of which, 114 patients who underwent virgin AUS placement were included in the study with a mean follow-up of 28.5 months. A total of 68 patients (59.6%) had AUS placement through penoscrotal incision; while, 46 (40.4%) had a perineal incision. While operative time was significantly shorter for penoscrotal placement (98.6 min vs. 136.3 min, p = 0.001), there were no significant differences in continence rates between either surgical approach with 76.5% socially continent defined as using zero to less than 1 pad per day (safety pad). The overall rate of device erosion or infection was not significantly different between groups. However, the rate of revision or replacement was significantly higher in the perineal group (26.1% v. 8.8%; p = 0.01). On multivariate analysis, the penoscrotal incision predicted a lower rate of device revision (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The penoscrotal approach of AUS placement is associated with shorter operative time. While we observed a lower revision rate compared to the perineal approach, there were equivalent continence outcomes.