The International Penile Prosthesis Implant Consensus Forum: clinical recommendations and surgical principles on the inflatable 3-piece penile prosthesis implant

Iatrogenic injuries to reservoirs of inflatable penile prosthesis during urologic surgery: a scoping review and case report

INTRODUCTION

First-line treatment options for patients with erectile dysfunction whose medical management has failed include the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Many patients with an IPP require subsequent urologic surgery, during which the reservoir of the IPP can be injured.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to present a summary of current literature related to iatrogenic injuries to the IPP sustained during urologic surgery.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently performed a systematic search on PubMed using standardized search terms to identify pertinent articles. After preliminary review, relevant studies were analyzed to identify the presence of perioperative complications resulting in IPP reservoir injury. Results were categorized by surgical procedures.

RESULTS

Among 13 articles included, all were based on urologic surgery. Four studies identified IPP reservoir injury as a result of surgical injury. Of these, injuries occurred during radical prostatectomy (n = 3) and prostatic urethral lift surgery (UroLift, n = 1). Most radical prostatectomy studies without IPP reservoir injuries also described intentional surgical techniques that were employed to prevent reservoir damage, including modulation of reservoir inflation-deflation (n = 3), temporary reservoir repositioning (n = 1), or reservoir capsule dissection to improve visualization (n = 1). Findings from an additional novel case report on IPP injury during a UroLift procedure are presented in this review.

CONCLUSION

Approximately one-third of studies identified intraoperative IPP reservoir injury as a significant complication of urologic surgery, particularly during radical prostatectomy. Novel case report findings also contribute the only other case of IPP reservoir damage sustained from delivery of UroLift implants. Findings are used to create a standardized surgical checklist that guides perioperative planning measures prior to pursuing surgery in adjacent spaces.

Unveiling the Hidden Perils: A Comprehensive Review of Fungal Infections in Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery is an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), but infections pose a significant threat to its success. Current guidelines lack antifungal recommendations, despite rising fungal infection rates post-IPP surgery. This review examines epidemiology, risk factors (including diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, and obesity), and pathogenesis, highlighting the role of biofilm formation in device contamination. Clinical manifestations vary from acute to delayed, with fungal biofilms presenting challenges in diagnosis. Prophylactic strategies, including broad-spectrum antibiotics and antifungals, are crucial, with evidence suggesting a 92% reduction in infections. With fungal infections showing lower salvage rates, management involves culture-guided treatment, irrigation, and oral antibiotics. Future research aims to understand biofilm mechanisms and develop biomaterials to reduce infection rates. Implementing antifungal therapy, along with standard practices like the no-touch technique and antibiotic dips, is crucial in preventing IPP infections.

50 years of inflatable penile implants: Where do we stand in France?

INTRODUCTION

With 50 years' experience, inflatable penile implants are the preferred option for erectile dysfunction refractory to pharmacological and mechanical treatment. Technical and surgical improvements have optimized patient success and satisfaction. However, multi-factorial dissatisfaction persists.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of available technological improvements and innovations, as well as the perioperative management and complications of inflatable penile implant surgery.

METHOD

A literature review was carried out over the last twenty years to answer 4 questions: what are the different inflatable penile implants available in 2023, for which indications, results and complications.

RESULTS

Four companies propose inflatable penile implants in France. The main improvements have been in the various components of the prosthesis with better cylinder extension, more ergonomic reservoirs, and more manageable pumps, leading to a better durability. Indications have been extended to patients suffering from Peyronie's disease and in emergency cases of priapism. In response to demand from the transgender population, specific phalloplasty implants have been developed. New options are being developed for difficult cases of retracted penis. Results show a high satisfaction rate. Currently the main challenge is the management of infection with the development of rescue protocols using antibiotics to preserve implants - or replace them in a single operation.

CONCLUSION

After 50years' experience, improvements in penile implants led to effective, satisfactory and safe treatment and can be proposed in new indications. Further development is sill necessary to offer solutions in difficult cases.

Quality of life and sexuality with penile prosthesis: a systematic review and pooled analysis

INTRODUCTION

Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) is the first validated questionnaire to specifically evaluate the satisfaction of patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation. Our primary aim was to conduct a systematic review and pooled analysis of articles reporting QoLSPP.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive bibliographic search on the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in April 2023. Studies were selected if they assessed male subjects (P) undergoing penile prosthesis implantation (I) with or without comparison with other treatments (C), reporting the patient satisfaction according to QoLSPP (O). Prospective and retrospective original studies were included (S). The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the Knoll method. Means and standard deviations (SDs) of QoLSPP scores were included in the pooled analysis. PROSPERO ID: "CRD42023427261."

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 10 studies investigating 1105 patients were included in the systematic review; of these, eight articles describing the outcomes of 693 subjects were eligible for the pooled analysis. Overall serious risk of bias was found in 2/3 of nonrandomized comparative studies (66%), while seven single-arm studies (100%) were classified as having a high risk of bias. Pooled analysis of the QoLSPP-Functional domain revealed an overall effect size (ES) of 4.22 points (95% CI 4.04-4.40; P<0.001). The QoLSPP-Relational pooled score was 4.17 points (95% CI 4.03-4.31; P<0.001). The QoLSPP-Social pooled score corresponded to 4.21 points (95% CI 4.02-4.40; P<0.001). Pooled analysis of the QoLSPP-Personal domain showed an overall ES of 3.97 points (95% CI 3.61-4.32; P<0.001). There was insufficient data to pool QoLSPP total scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation report positive scores in all QoLSPP domains, demonstrating high satisfaction levels. Future studies are needed to improve the evidence on the topic.

Successful re-implantation of eroded penile prostheses: Report of two cases and review of the literature

Prompt removal of eroded penile prostheses is recommended in most cases. However, saving and reimplanting eroded implants may be considered in patients without signs of sepsis, local infection or necrosis during preoperative evaluations and surgical exploration. Notably, close postoperative surveillance is crucial in this setting.

Perioperative outcomes of penile prosthesis implantation in Germany: results from the GRAND study

We aimed to assess the recommended annual hospital volume for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) and to provide evidence on perioperative outcomes of semi-rigid and inflatable PPI in Germany. We used the GeRmAn Nationwide inpatient Data (GRAND) from 2005 to 2021 and report the largest study to date with 7,222 patients. 6,818 (94.4%) patients underwent inflatable and 404 (5.6%) semi-rigid PPI. Inflatable PPI was significantly associated with shorter length of hospital stay (difference of 2.2 days, 95%CI: 1.6-2.7, p < 0.001), lower odds of perioperative urinary tract infections (5.5% versus 9.2%; OR: 0.58, 95%CI: 0.41-0.84, p = 0.003) and surgical wound infections (1% versus 2.5%; OR: 0.42, 95%CI: 0.22-0.88, p = 0.012) compared to semi-rigid PPI. Overall, 4255 (62.4%) inflatable PPIs were undertaken in low- ( < 20 PPI/year) and 2563 (37.6%) in high-volume ( ≥ 20 PPI/year) centers. High-volume centers were significantly associated with shorter length of hospital stay (difference of 1.4 days, 95%CI: 1.2-1.7, p < 0.001) compared to low-volume centers. Our findings suggest that inflatable PPI leads to a shorter length of hospital stay and lower rates of perioperative urinary tract and surgical wound infections compared to semi-rigid PPI. Patients undergoing surgery in high-volume centers for inflatable PPI are discharged earlier from the hospital.

Perspective: Residual penile curvature correction during penile prosthesis implantation by plication in Peyronie's patients

For patients with large calcified tunical plaque or severe corporal fibrosis which are likely to have a pronounced and persistent residual curvature which may not be correct by penile prosthesis implantation alone, other adjunctive manoeuvres such as penile plication and/or plaque incision with grafting may be necessary. The sequence between penile plication and penile prosthesis implantation is largely dependent on several factors such as the severity of penile curvature, the presence of (calcified) tunical plaque(s) and whether aggressive corporal dilation and subsequent penile remodelling with an inflated implant can straighten any residual penis curvature. The advantages of pre-placement of penile plication sutures prior to penile prosthesis implantation are the avoidance of inadvertent damage to the underlying penile prosthesis implant, the ability to adjust the tension on the rows of the plication sutures based on residual curvature with the device fully inflated, and potentially minimising the duration of surgery. In contrast, penile prosthesis implantation followed by penile plication to correct residual curvature, this sequence of surgery may negate the need for penile plications if penile remodelling is effective, or the residual curvature is less than 15 degrees where postoperative manual remodelling may continue to improve the penile cosmesis. When performed by expert surgeons and adhering to safe surgical principles, there is no doubt that patients will be satisfied with the outcomes and highly appreciative of the final penile cosmesis and the ensuing optimal outcomes.

Penile implants in low flow priapism

Priapism is a persistent or prolonged erection, in the absence of sexual stimulation, that fails to subside. Prolonged ischaemic or low flow priapism is defined as a full or partial erection persisting for more than 4 h and unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation, characterised by little or no cavernous blood flow. Low flow priapism leads to progressive corporal fibrosis, which could, in turn, lead to long-lasting erectile dysfunction if left untreated. Penile prosthesis implantation is recognised as a management option in refractory and delayed low flow priapism for restoring erectile function with high patient satisfaction rates. However, the ensuing corporal fibrotic scarring poses a surgical challenge to clinicians, given the higher complication rates in this patient subset. Postoperative patient satisfaction has been closely linked to preoperative expectations and perceived loss of penile length. Therefore, thorough patient counselling concerning the risk and benefits of penile implants should be a priority for all clinicians. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus on the ideal prosthesis choice and procedural timing in refractory low flow priapism. In this review, we will examine the existing literature on penile implants in patients with priapism and discuss the options for managing complications associated with penile prosthesis surgery.

A narrative review on malleable and inflatable penile implants: choosing the right implant for the right patient

A penile prosthesis/implant is an excellent option for men with erectile dysfunction refractory to medical treatment or with contraindications to medical management. In this narrative review, we discuss the different types of penile prostheses and the considerations for patient and device selection to maximize satisfaction. There are three main prosthesis types to choose from: three-piece inflatable devices, two-piece inflatable devices, and malleable/semirigid devices. The three-piece devices are the gold standard in advanced economy countries but require reservoir placement and manual dexterity, which can be limiting to some patients. The two-piece inflatable devices are a good option for patients who have standard-sized penises, lack significant penile pathology, have limited dexterity issues, or should avoid reservoir placement due to potential complications. The malleable devices are popular in countries where insurance coverage is limited but are increasingly used in advanced economy countries for length conservation in specific patient populations. Finally, not every patient needs an implant, and assessing partner sexual function is an important consideration for patient-partner satisfaction. Surgeons need to be familiar with the strengths and limitations of each device and the patient characteristics that will yield the best outcome from penile prosthesis surgery.

History of penile implants: from implants made of bone to modern inflatable penile implants

Penile prostheses are implantable devices used to definitively treat erectile dysfunction when previous forms of treatment have failed. The first example of a penile implant dates to 1935, when a rib was inserted in a neo-phallus reconstructed after a traumatic amputation. Since then, alternative artificial devices were adopted as penile prosthetic implants. The evolution of prosthetic devices had a dramatic thrust in 1973 when the first inflatable penile prosthesis was worldwide presented. Thanks to advances in device materials, design, surgical implant techniques, and perioperative management, nowadays inflatable penile prostheses are one of the most adopted definitive therapy for patients with drug-refractory erectile dysfunction or refusing alternative forms of treatments. Moreover, the clinical indications for inflatable penile prosthesis have also expanded, including female-to-male transmen or men underwent penile reconstruction due to congenital aphallia or traumatic or surgical penile amputation. In order to summarise the process behind the development and evolution of penile prosthesis, we aimed at performing a historical review of the currently available literature to provide an easy and comprehensive overview of the topic. The understanding of the historical process behind the evolution of inflatable penile prostheses will drive further innovation to increase efficiency and the rate of patients satisfaction.

Defining the incidence and management of postoperative scrotal hematoma after primary and complex three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis surgery

Scrotal hematoma is a challenging complication of penile prosthesis surgery. We characterize the risk of hematoma formation with implementation of standardized techniques to mitigate hematomas and assess for any associated factors in a large multi-institutional penile implant cohort. This was a retrospective review from February 2018 to December 2020 of all patients who underwent inflatable penile prosthesis implantation at 2 high volume implant centers. Cases were defined as "complex" if they involved revision, salvage with removal/replacement, or were performed with concurrent penile, scrotal or intra-abdominal surgeries. The incidence of scrotal hematoma among primary and complex IPP recipients was measured and modifiable and innate risk factors associated with hematoma formation within the two cohorts were tracked. Of 246 men who underwent penile prosthesis surgery, 194 (78.9%) patients underwent primary implantation and 52 (21.1%) were complex. Although hematoma formers in the complex group had comparable drain outputs to primary patients on postoperative day 0 (66.8cc ± 32.5 vs 48.4 ± 27.7, p = 0.470) and postoperative day 1 (40.3cc ± 20.8vs 21.8 ± 11.3 p = 0.125), hematomas in the complex group had a higher propensity for OR evacuation (p = 0.03). Difference in duration of temporary device inflation between 2 (64, 26%) and 4 weeks (182, 74%) did not contribute to hematoma formation (p = 0.562). The incidence of postoperative hematoma formation in complex cases was 9.6% (5/52) and 3.6% in primary cases (7/194) (HR = 2.61, p = 0.072). Complex IPP surgery performed for revision or with ancillary procedures are more likely to result in clinically significant hematomas that require surgical management, suggesting a need for heightened caution in managing these individuals.

Advanced hydrogels: New expectation for the repair of organic erectile dysfunction

Organic erectile dysfunction (ED) is a type of sexual disorder in men that is usually associated with illness, surgical injury, normal aging and has a high incidence across the globe. And the essence of penile erection is a neurovascular event regulated by a combination of factors. Nerve and vascular injury are the main causes of erectile dysfunction. Currently, the main treatment options for ED include phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is), intracorporeal injections and vacuum erection devices (VEDs), which are ineffective. Therefore, it is essential to find an emerging, non-invasive and effective treatment for ED. The histopathological damage causing ED can be improved or even reversed with hydrogels, in contrast to current therapies. Hydrogels have many advantages, they can be synthesized from various raw materials with different properties, possess a definite composition, and have good biocompatibility and biodegradability. These advantages make hydrogels an effective drug carrier. In this review, we began with an overview of the underlying mechanisms of organic erectile dysfunction, discussed the dilemmas of existing treatments for ED, and described the unique advantages of hydrogel over other approaches. Then emphasizing the progress of research on hydrogels in the treatment of ED.

Midline submuscular penile prosthesis reservoir placement for patients with bilateral inaccessible inguinal rings: technique and outcomes

Introduction

One of the most challenging aspects of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery is reservoir placement. The traditional space of Retzius (SOR) is not suitable for all patients. For example, radical cystectomy or prostatectomy may alter the anatomical SOR. Hence, traditional placement of the reservoir in this space increases the risk of bowel or vascular injury. Also, patients with bilateral inguinal hernias repaired with mesh, or those with previous reservoirs that have been retained, are not eligible for a Retzius reservoir. Our study reports on the use of midline sub-rectus muscle placement of a penile prosthesis reservoir in these patients as an alternative to high submuscular placement commonly used.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of male patients who underwent IPP surgery between June 2017 and 2021 was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups based on the location of the reservoir: SOR versus Midline Submuscular Reservoir (MSMR). Complication rates were compared, including herniated reservoirs, infections, bowel injuries, and vascular injuries.

Results

Our cohort included 461 patients who underwent IPP surgery between June 2017 and 2021 in one tertiary center. SOR was used in 89% of patients and MSMR in 11% of patients (n = 413 and 48, respectively). Median follow-up for all patients was 28 months. The mean age was 67 ± 8 years. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding age or comorbidities (BMI, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and coronary artery disease). The complication rate was low in both the SOR and MSMR groups, with device malfunction being the most common (2% versus 4%, respectively; p = 0.32). The infection rate was 0.5% in the SOR group with no infections in the MSMR group (NS). There was only one case of herniation requiring surgical revision in the SOR group and no cases of bowel or vascular injury.

Conclusion

Placement of a penile prosthesis reservoir within a midline rectus submuscular space is a safe and effective technique when the SOR is compromised by previous surgery or bilateral inguinal canals are not accessible.