30-day adverse event rates following penile prosthesis surgery: an American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program based evaluation

Current devices, outcomes, and pain management considerations in penile implant surgery: an updated review of the literature

Penile prosthesis surgery is a definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). The two categories of penile prosthesis are endorsed by professional guidelines, inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and malleable penile prosthesis (MPP). Each modality of penile prosthesis offers distinct advantages and incorporates specific design features, allowing for personalized device selection that aligns with individual needs and preferences. While the overall complication rate of penile implant surgery remains low, surgeons should maintain a high index of suspicion for complications in the perioperative time period. Multimodal analgesic regimens including nerve blocks and narcotic-free pathways should be administered to manage perioperative pain. Finally, the high patient satisfaction after penile prosthesis surgery underscores the success of this ED treatment option.

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.

Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Safety of Perioperative Subcutaneous Heparin During Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To identify the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk factors, postoperative VTE, and to assess the morbidity of perioperative pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in men undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 215 patients undergoing IPP surgery between July 2017 and June 2019. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyzes were performed to assess pre-operative Caprini risk score and compare post-operative day 0 scrotal drain output, scrotal hematoma formation, and VTE in men who received subcutaneous heparin (SqH) vs those who did not receive SqH.

RESULTS

Of 215 IPP patients, 84% were classified as high or highest risk for VTE utilizing the Caprini risk score. A total of 119 (55%) received perioperative SqH with or without additional anti-thrombotics. Post-operative day 0 scrotal drain output was higher in those who received SqH compared to those who did not receive SqH, 99.9 mL vs 75.6 mL, respectively (P = .001). Minor scrotal hematomas occurred in similar rates in patients who received perioperative SqH vs those who did not, 3.8% vs 6.3%, respectively (P = .38). Similar results were found on subgroup analysis when eliminating patients who received SqH concurrently with other anti-thrombotics. The overall rate of postoperative VTE was 0.9%. No post-operative infections occurred.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing IPP surgery are at elevated risk for VTE. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing SqH use in the perioperative IPP surgery setting is safe when used in conjunction with a scrotal drain. Preoperative VTE risk stratification may be performed and can be used to guide clinical decision making regarding pharmacologic prophylaxis.

Closed suction drain outputs at 12 and 24 hours after primary three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis surgery

This is a single-institution retrospective study of closed suction drain outputs in primary three-piece IPP cases performed between 2014 and 2017 by a single surgeon. The aim was to investigate the impact of closed suction drains (CSD) during penile prosthesis placement. One hundred and sixty-nine patients underwent intraoperative placement of a closed suction drain. Drain outputs were measured at 12 and 24 h, and postoperative complications were documented. There were no hematomas or infections observed within the patient cohort. The drain output decreased significantly between the first and subsequent 12 h period. Surgical time was associated with statistically significant increases in CSD output at 12 and 24 h with a near linear relationship between surgical times and CSD at 12 and 24 h. Penile prosthesis placement in patients on aspirin did not affect the CSD output volume. Closed suction drains should be considered in all patients undergoing placement of inflatable penile prosthesis, particularly in those cases with longer operative time.

Urethral Injury and the Penile Prosthesis

INTRODUCTION

The relative infrequency of urethral injuries during penile prosthesis implantation has caused the event to be understudied relative to the morbidity and cost associated with their management.

AIM

To draw attention to both acute intraoperative and delayed urethral injuries via cylinder erosion by compiling and evaluating the available literature on their cause, diagnosis, and management.

METHODS

A literature review was performed through PubMed from 1985 to 2018 regarding urethral injuries in the setting of penile prosthesis implantation. Comorbidities and anatomic factors that predispose a patient to a urethral injury were also queried.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The goal is to identify at-risk populations and assess options for managing distal, mid-pendulous, and proximal acute urethral injuries that occur in the setting of penile prosthesis implantation. We also examine strategies to manage prosthesis erosion into the urethra.

RESULTS

Although urethral injuries are rare, certain patient populations are at higher risk for the event. Injuries at various locations along the urethra present unique challenging and morbid clinical scenarios. However, there are a variety of management options available that allow a patient to ultimately void normally and have a successfully implanted penile prosthesis.

CONCLUSION

Overall, penile prostheses offer many patients an improved sexual quality of life. In the setting of prosthesis implantation both acute and delayed urethral injuries are rare, but their associated morbidity can undercut the benefits of the device. Our understanding of these injuries has matured, and we now possess management strategies that can mitigate the morbidity and frustration that accompany this complication. Carlos EC, Sexton SJ, Lentz AC. Urethral injury and the penile prosthesis. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:360-368.