Medical pre-operative considerations for patients undergoing penile implantation

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.

Penile prosthesis in the medically complex patient: a narrative review

Background and Objective

Penile prosthesis surgery is considered a safe and effective treatment for patients with erectile dysfunction. Implantation in the medically complex patient can be a challenge. The benefits of treatment must outweigh the possible risks or complications. A description of possible problems and how to cope with them is given in this narrative review.

Methods

Literature search was performed in January 2023 using different search prompts in PubMed. These articles, excluding non-English and non-full text articles, were listed by the two authors and afterwards, the most relevant ones were included.

Key Content and Findings

This article is divided into five important topics. We evaluated different comorbidities such as spinal cord injury, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, in which preoperative work-up and counseling is of significant importance. A detailed description of these comorbidities and how to handle these can be found in each section. In addition to the preoperative aspect in organ transplant patients, problems during surgery can arise, e.g., with the reservoir placement. Similarly, in patients with previous pelvic surgery, an ectopic reservoir placement can prevent possible complications.

Conclusions

Preoperative diagnostics are crucial and prosthetic surgery should be done by an experienced high-volume surgeon with a diverse range of surgical techniques at his disposal.

Assessing psychiatric risk with a focus on optimizing patient satisfaction with penile prosthesis placement-a narrative review

Background and Objective

Treatment for medication-refractory erectile dysfunction (ED) is based on a shared decision-making model. The gold standard treatment for medication refractory ED is penile prosthesis (PP) placement. Patient satisfaction rates with PP are high with adequate counseling and expectation-setting. However, as with any elective surgery, patient selection is key to minimizing complications and ultimately patient dissatisfaction. Psychological well-being is an important consideration in the preoperative evaluation and postoperative management of patients undergoing PP placement.

Methods

We performed a PubMed literature review to identify pertinent studies for this narrative review. Specifically, we sought describe preoperative evaluation including appropriate counseling and patient selection as well relevant intraoperative and postoperative factors for patients undergoing PP placement with a specific focus on optimizing preoperative psychiatric factors and treatment-related patient satisfaction to identify pertinent articles describing ways to optimize patient satisfaction with PP.

Key Content and Findings

A patient's psychological state can influence the degree of understanding of their condition, affect perception of their treatment team, and limit their ability to cope with complications. All patients should undergo a thorough medical history and physical examination to screen for psychiatric health disorders, substance abuse, and chronic pain conditions. Establishing patient expectations with regards to treatment-related outcomes during the preoperative consultation will ensure congruency between the patient and performing surgeon. Patients with a more significant psychiatric distress related to their underlying sexual dysfunction may require additional evaluation and counseling preoperatively.

Conclusions

PP placement is associated with high levels of overall satisfaction in appropriately screened patients. Specific considerations during preoperative counseling and careful patient selection, intraoperative decision making to avoid or anticipate possible complications, and postoperative cares are necessary to ensure the best result for an individual patient.

Complications and troubleshooting in primary penile prosthetic surgery-a review

Penile implant surgery is the gold standard to treat erectile dysfunction with success rates of over 90%. The first penile implants were developed in the early 1900s. Since then, several types of implants have been developed including malleable implants, two-piece inflatable implants, and three-piece inflatable implants. The three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis, which was introduced in 1973, is the most widely used type of penile implant in the United States. Penile implant surgery has undergone numerous advancements over the years, improving outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, as with any surgical procedure, there are risks and complications associated with penile implant surgery. It is important for surgeons to understand these potential complications and to have strategies in place to manage and prevent them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their patients.

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.

Is the infrapubic approach a safe option for patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus and obesity undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis surgery?

Objective:

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery is an effective treatment for patients with erectile dysfunction (ED). The two most used surgical approaches are infrapubic (IP) and penoscrotal (PS). Concerns exist whether raised Body Mass Index (BMI) or poor glycaemic control negatively affect outcome. We conducted a retrospective review of 50 consecutive virgin IP IPP cases investigating the effect of BMI and glycaemic control on post-operative complications and implant utilisation.

Patients and Methods:

Data collected included demographics, ED aetiology and risk factors, diabetic status, HbA1c and post-operative complications focusing on infection and re-operation. Telephone survey provided implant usage at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. All patients followed the same pre-, peri- and post-operative pathway, including antibiotic prophylaxis and implant preparation.

Results:

Complication rates of patients with BMI ⩾ 30 (2/20; 10%) and BMI < 30 (0/28, 0%) ( p = 0.169) and of patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (DM), HbA1c > 69 mmol/mol (0/6, 0%) versus HbA1c ⩽ 69 (2/21, 9.52%) ( p = 1) were not significantly different. Two patients reported complications. Implant utilisation did not differ significantly between low or high BMI and HbA1c cohorts.

Conclusion:

Our study shows pre-operative HbA1c and BMI do not significantly impact complication rates or implant utilisation in patients undergoing IP IPP insertion.

Level of Evidence:

2b

Tips and tricks in the management of inflatable penile prosthesis infection: A review

Objective:

To review the management of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infection.

Methods: The ‘gold-standard’ treatment for medication-refractory erectile dysfunction is the IPP, wherein the most dreaded complication is infection. To prevent and manage an infected IPP requires a strict protocol during the pre-, intra-, and postoperative course. A variety of techniques and antibiotics are used in conjunction with IPP implantation to prevent contamination. This modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) review of the literature examines the current practices by leading urologists in the management of IPP infection, as well as provides insights for improved patient outcomes.

Results

: Patient selection is important to reduce IPP infections, and those with risk factors need to be optimised prior to surgery. Proper antibiotic prophylaxis includes pre-, intra-, and postoperative administration. As most infections derive from normal skin flora, every measure must be taken to sterilise the skin and avoid direct device skin contact. Up to 3% of virgin IPPs develop infections and this number increases to 18% in revision cases. Antibiotic coverage depends on the presenting microbe, which can vary significantly between patients.

Conclusions

: A greater success in IPP implantation can be attributed to appropriate prophylaxis, field sterilisation, and surgical technique. For those implants that do become infected, often erectile function can be preserved by immediate antibiotic coverage combined with salvage procedures.

Penile Prosthesis Complications: Planning, Prevention, and Decision Making

INTRODUCTION

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is an established treatment option for men with erectile dysfunction (ED) refractory to medical therapy. Standardization of surgical technique and improvements in device construction have reduced all-cause complication rates to less than 5% in recent reports. Nonetheless, complications do exist, and can strongly impact morbidity and the quality of life of patients. Prosthetic urologists must be aware of the constellation of complications that can arise during or after IPP placement.

AIM

To provide a comprehensive review of penile prosthesis complications and discuss preventative strategies, as well as proper preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative decision making.

METHODS

A review of the available literature from 1973 to 2018 was performed using PubMed with regard to IPP complications.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We reviewed publications that outlined preoperative planning strategies and the following IPP complications: hematoma, floppy glans, corporal fibrosis, corporal perforation and crossover, urethral injury, infection, impending erosion, and glandular ischemia.

RESULTS

Careful patient and device selection, setting realistic expectations of postsurgical outcomes, and adherence to a perioperative checklist is essential in the preoperative period. Intraoperatively, anticipate corporal fibrosis situations and always dilate laterally during corporal passage to reduce the risk of crossover and urethral injury. Limit perioperative antiplatelet therapy, apply compressive dressing, use a closed suction drain if indicated, and leave the device partially inflated postoperatively to reduce risk of hematoma. After surgery, monitor patients for potential complications that may warrant device explantation or salvage: IPP infection, glans ischemia, and impending erosion.

CONCLUSIONS

By using evidence and expert opinion-based decision-making strategies in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative period of IPP placement, surgeons can reduce the risk of complications and dissatisfaction, even in ED patients with multiple comorbid conditions. Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, et al. Penile Prosthesis Complications: Planning, Prevention, and Decision Making. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:349-359.