Penile prosthesis implantation: a bibliometric-based visualization study

The treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) using penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) has recently garnered significant interest, but reports of bibliometric analyses of studies on PPI have yet to appear. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to use visualization techniques to statistically and qualitatively assess the state of knowledge, current research topics, and trends in this field. The Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) was searched for publications about PPI from the inception of the database to 2023. VOSviewer (version 1.6.19), CiteSpace (version 6.2. R2), and Excel (version 2021) were used for the data analysis. The results show a total of 1015 original articles and reviews on PPI published over this nearly 50 years, with an increasing trend in the number of studies published each year. The United States is the country with the most published studies (n = 578). Mayo Clinic is the organization with the most publications overall (n = 46). The Journal of Sexual Medicine has the most publications (n = 184). The most prolific author is Wilson, Steven K (n = 31). The most commonly used terms were erectile dysfunction (n = 509), penile prosthesis (n = 332), implantation (n = 207), satisfaction (n = 201), surgery (n = 200), infection (n = 134), outcomes (n = 128), Peyronie's disease (n = 121), men (n = 115), and experience (n = 109). Current research focuses on four main areas: complications of PPI, the current status of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), the use of PPI in radical prostatectomy and Peyronie's disease populations, and patient satisfaction after PPI. Improving patient satisfaction with PPI through improved mechanical design and surgical techniques is a key concern for future research.

Mid-term outcomes of minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: A single-center study and literature review

BACKGROUND

The minimally invasive infrapubic approach (MIIA) for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement has shown favorable peri-operative safety and efficacy profile, but scarce data exist on long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the safety and efficacy of IPP implantation via the MIIA after a minimum 5-year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified data of implanted patients prospectively included in our institutional database. Complications and functional outcomes were assessed by using validated tools. Specifically, quality of life and patient satisfaction were evaluated by the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaire. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze IPP survival (defined as a working IPP).

RESULTS

Overall, 67 patients implanted by MIIA with a median (IQR) age of 64 years (61-70) were included. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 71 months (63-80). Fifteen (22%) patients experienced complications: minor (Clavien ≤2) events included changes in penile sensitivity (n = 1; 1.5%), orgasmic dysfunction (n = 1; 1.5%), pain (n = 5; 7%), urinary tract infection (n = 2; 3%), and chronic discomfort (n = 1; 1.5%); major (Clavien 3) complications were represented by mechanical failure (n = 3; 4.5%), IPP infection (n = 1; 1.5%), and cylinder protrusion (n = 1; 1.5%). The estimated IPP survival was 94% (95% CI, 91.4-96.6), 92.5% (95% CI, 89.7-95.3), and 92.5% (95% CI, 89.7-95.3) at 3, 5, and 7 years after implantation, respectively. In patients using the device at follow-up (n = 61; 91%), median (IQR) scores for QoLSPP domains demonstrated favorable functional outcomes and patient satisfaction: functional 21 (19-23), personal 16 (15-18), relational 14 (12-15), and social 12 (11-14).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study represents the longest follow-up using validated tools to assess the outcomes of IPP implantation via MIIA so far. IPP placement via MIIA confirms to be safe and to offer high satisfaction to both patients and partners at mid-term evaluation.

Penoscrotal approach for inflatable penile prosthesis implant: why it should be preferred

INTRODUCTION

Inflatable penile prosthesis are the definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction. The two most used surgical approaches to position the implants are the penoscrotal and the infrapubic. Current trends showed that the penoscrotal approach is extensively preferred however, there is not conclusive evidence demonstrating the superiority of one technique over the other. The aim of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence available and to underline strengths and weaknesses of the two techniques.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed to identify relevant published articles. The included studies had to explicitly examine the use of three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis with a focus on the surgical access method and complications.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-six articles were included in the review: seven narrative reviews, five retrospective observational studies, five prospective observational studies, and nine mixed methodology studies. The most frequent approach was the penoscrotal, which was also found more comfortable (RG1) by the operators in one study. The infrapubic approach lasts less and one study demonstrated higher satisfaction by the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of significant differences in complications among the penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches. While the infrapubic approach is faster and patients were more satisfied, the penoscrotal approach is the most used by far. This is likely related to the more straightforward procedure through this access and the excellent surgical field exposure. For these reasons, it is also preferred in the most complex cases.

"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.

Infrapubic surgical approach for penile prosthesis surgery: Indications and technique

CONTEXT

Penile prosthesis surgery is currently the most effective treatment for erectile dysfunction when medical treatment is ineffective or contraindicated. Among the surgical approaches described in the literature, the scrotal, infrapubic and subcoronal are the most common in the daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives were to describe the infrapubic surgical technique evaluating its indications and complications, as well as comparing its advantages and disadvantages with the penoscrotal approach.

ACQUISITION AND SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE

A literature review from 1983 until current date was carried out in Medline (PubMed and Cochrane Library databases) following PRISMA standards. Sixteen studies were included: 4 prospective, 4 retrospective, one systematic review, one randomized trial, one original article, 5 expert opinion/surgical technique descriptive paper.

DISCUSSION

According to the literature reviewed, although the penoscrotal approach is the most applied, the infrapubic approach showed a shorter operative time and a tendency for an earlier recovery of sexual activity after surgery. Complications are rare, having similar rates to the penoscrotal approach; no cases of glans hypoesthesia have been reported and peri-prosthetic infection rates were less than 3%. Satisfaction rates of infrapubic penile prosthesis were higher than 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

Penile prosthesis implantation requires of a profound knowledge of the different surgical approaches in order to best adapt each technique based on each individualized case. The infrapubic approach, even if it is not the most used, is as feasible and reliable as the penoscrotal approach. The infrapubic approach is effective and safe, with high level of both, patients and partners' satisfaction.

Infrapubic approach for placement of inflatable penile prosthesis: contemporary review of technique and implications

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction refractory to nonsurgical management. The infrapubic approach for IPP placement is less frequently employed than the penoscrotal approach, with only about 25% of IPPs placed via this method. Underutilization of the infrapubic method may be due to fear of injuring the penile dorsal neurovascular bundle, perceived difficulties of scrotal pump placement through a distant location, or insufficient distal corporal exposure. However, this approach appears to result in favorable operative times, faster time to device activation, equivalent postoperative satisfaction and quality of life, and similar complication rates. We provide a contemporary review of literature published before May 2019 regarding the infrapubic approach for IPP placement, technical considerations, and postoperative expectations.

Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative results, safety and efficacy profile in patients receiving inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) via penoscrotal (PS) or minimally invasive infrapubic (MII) approach for erectile dysfunction.

METHODS

A matched-pair analysis was performed including 42 patients undergoing IPP implantation via PS (n = 21) or MII (n = 21) between 2011 and 2016. Clinical and surgical data were prospectively collected. Patients' and partners' outcomes were assessed by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) and Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaires.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) operative time was 128 (40.6) min in group PS and 91 (43.0) min in group MII (p = 0.041). Complications occurred in 3/21 (14%) and 2/21 (10%) patients in groups PS and MII (p = 0.832). Overall, no differences were observed concerning the device utilisation (p = 0.275). However, in group MII 4/21 (19%) patients were able to resume sexual activity prior to 4 postoperative weeks, while in group PS no patient was (p = 0.012). Mean (SD) scores for questionnaires were similar between groups PS and MII: IIEF [20.9 (7.3) vs. 20.7 (4.8); p = 0.132], patient EDITS [76.0 (25.6) vs. 74.7 (20.8); p = 0.256] and partner EDITS [72.5 (29.1) vs. 73.1 (21.4); p = 0.114]. Similarly, QoLSPP showed comparable results among the groups PS and MII: functional domain [3.9 (1.4) vs. 4.0 (1.2); p = 0.390], personal [4.0 (1.2) vs. 4.1 (1.0); p = 0.512], relational [3.7 (1.5) vs. 3.9 (1.2); p = 0.462] and social [4.0 (1.2) vs. 3.9 (1.2); p = 0.766].

CONCLUSIONS

PS and MII demonstrated to be safe and efficient techniques, leading to high level of both patients and partners satisfaction. Additionally, the minimally invasive infrapubic approach showed a shorter operative time and a tendency for a faster return to sexual activity.

The infrapubic surgical approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement

In this invited article, we briefly review the history of the penile prosthesis and the various surgical approaches that have been described. With intra-operative photos and illustrations, we discuss Dr. Perito's infrapubic surgical approach. We also highlight the patient selection, post-operative care and complications.

A practical overview of considerations for penile prosthesis placement

Penile prostheses have remained the gold-standard therapy for medically refractory erectile dysfunction (ED) since their popularization. Advances in device design and surgical techniques have yielded improved rates of infection, satisfaction, and mechanical survival of devices. Operative techniques in penile prosthesis surgery include the use of adjunctive procedures (such as ventral phalloplasty and release of the suspensory ligament), management of penile fibrosis, and manoeuvres to correct Peyronie's-disease-related curvature. Complications include urethral and corporal perforation, crossover, infection, impending erosion, and/or supersonic transporter deformity. Long-term data regarding mechanical, overall, and infection-free survival demonstrate excellent results, and, given the consistently high satisfaction rates and limited alternatives for medically refractory ED, penile prostheses are likely to remain a relevant and important treatment strategy for the foreseeable future.

Practice patterns of urologists performing penile prosthesis surgery vary based on surgeon volume: results of a practice pattern survey

Inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) are widely accepted as a means of surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction. It has been suggested that surgeon volume influences patient outcomes after IPP implantation. We used a written questionnaire to ask urologists who perform IPP surgery about their practice patterns. Our analysis correlated specific practices to self-reported IPP volume. A written questionnaire was distributed to 1968 urologists. Responses were collated and analyzed. Respondents were defined as high volume implanters (HVIs) if they placed >or=20 IPPs in the year preceding the survey, or low volume implanters (LVIs) if they placed <or=19. Our main outcome measures were surgeon volume, approach to initial IPP placement (penoscrotal vs infrapubic), strategy for reservoir management during IPP revision surgery, strategy for reservoir replacement when deemed necessary, approach to suspected IPP infections, and utilization of revision washout protocols. This study does not require institutional review board approval from our institution, given that patient information is not used at all, this is a practitioner survey only. HVIs were significantly more likely to incorporate both penoscrotal and suprapubic approaches into their armamentarium, more likely to manipulate previously placed IPP reservoirs during revision surgery, and more likely to operate immediately when confronted with a suspected IPP infection. They were also more likely than LVIs to use the Mulcahy revision washout protocol. There are significant differences in the self-reported practice patterns of HVIs and LVIs. The importance of these differences for patient outcomes remains undefined.