Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction

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.

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.

Penoscrotal inflatable penile prosthesis recipients often fully recover from pain at two weeks following placement

The symptoms and duration of pain following inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery remains poorly understood. We characterize postoperative pain following penoscrotal 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement in patients managed with a standardized pain management protocol. This is a single-center prospective analysis of 96 virginal penoscrotal 3-piece IPP recipients (9/2019 to 9/2021) excluding patients with chronic pain, IPPs performed with alternative approaches or concomitantly with other surgeries and those with infections. Standardized pain questionnaire was performed by phone on post-operative day (POD) 2, 7, 14, and 30. The primary outcome was self-reported pain scores, measured by pain score 0-10 (0 = no pain, 10 = unbearable, "worst pain you have ever felt") at various locations (incision, penile, scrotal, abdominal) over the first 30 days postoperatively. A majority of pain reported was outside the scrotal area with 67.6% of complaints in the shaft, glans, abdomen and incision. From POD2 to POD30, there was a significant decrease in severe pain from 46.2 to 11.1% (p = 0.05) with an increase in mild pain from 23.1 to 62.4% (p = 0.05). Roughly half of the participants (47.9%, n = 46) reported no pain by POD14. Penoscrotal IPP recipients often fully recover from pain at the two-week period following surgery and those with lingering discomfort predominantly complain of penile shaft and glans pain.

Management of urologic prosthetic reservoirs at the time of inguinal or pelvic surgery

INTRODUCTION

The artificial urinary sphincter and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis each require a fluid storage component and thus have components in the inguinal and pelvic regions. Because of this, patients with urologic prosthetics sometimes present challenges during future nonprosthetic operations. Presently, there is no established guideline for device management with ensuing inguinal or pelvic surgery.

AIMS

This article outlines concerns during pelvic and inguinal surgery for patients with an artificial urinary sphincter and/or inflatable penile prosthesis and proposes an algorithm for preoperative surgical planning and decision making.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of the literature on operative management of these prosthetic devices. Publications were identified by searching electronic databases. Only peer-reviewed publications available in English were considered for this review.

RESULTS

We review the important considerations as well as available options for operative management of these prosthetic devices during subsequent nonprosthetic surgery and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each. Finally, we suggest a framework for helping surgeons determine which management strategy is most appropriate for their individual patients.

CONCLUSION

The best management strategy will differ depending on patient values, the planned surgery, and patient-specific factors. Surgeons should understand and counsel patients on all available options and encourage informed, shared decision making to determine the best individualized approach.

Mechanical indications for inflatable penile prosthesis revision: analysis and implications for revision surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite technical advancements, inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) are inherently at risk of mechanical failure given their nature as hydraulic devices.

AIM

To characterize IPP component failure location at the time of device revision and stratify by manufacturer: American Medical Systems (Boston Scientific [BSCI]) and Coloplast (CP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of penile prosthesis cases from July 2007 to May 2022 was conducted, identifying men who underwent revision surgery. Cases were excluded if documentation did not denote the cause of failure or the manufacturer. Mechanical indications for surgery were categorized by location (eg, tubing, cylinder, or reservoir leak; pump malfunction). Nonmechanical revisions were excluded (component herniation, erosion, or crossover). Categorical variables were assessed with Fisher exact or chi-square analysis; Student t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for continuous variables.

OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes included specific location of IPP mechanical failure among BSCI and CP devices and time to mechanical failure.

RESULTS

We identified 276 revision procedures, 68 of which met inclusion criteria (46 BSCI and 22 CP). Revised CP devices were longer than BSCI devices (median cylinder length, 20 vs 18 cm; P < .001). Log-rank analysis revealed a similar time to mechanical failure between brands (P = .096). CP devices failed most often due to tubing fracture (19/22, 83%). BSCI devices had no predominant site of failure. Between manufacturers, tubing failure was more common in CP devices (19/22 vs 15/46 for BSCI, P < .001), while cylinder failure was more common among BSCI devices (10/46 vs 0/22 for CP, P = .026).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The distribution of mechanical failure is significantly different between BSCI and CP devices; this has implications regarding the approach to revision surgery.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This is the first study to directly compare when and where mechanical failure occurs in IPPs and to compare the 2 main manufacturers head-to-head. This study would be strengthened by being repeated in a multi-institutional fashion to provide more robust and objective evaluation.

CONCLUSION

CP devices commonly failed at the tubing and rarely elsewhere, while BSCI devices showed no predominant failure site; these findings may inform decision making regarding revision surgery.

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.

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

Despite significant scientific advances in the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implant surgery, it is not without surgical risks and can carry additional cosmetic and psychosocial consequences in poorly selected and consented individuals. To address this problem, an international group of key opinion leaders and high-volume prosthetic surgeons reviewed the current guidelines and clinical evidence, discussed their experiences, and formed a consensus regarding inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. The findings of this consensus panel were presented at the 17th biennial Asia Pacific Society of Sexual Medicine scientific meeting. The experts concluded that proper patient selection, informed consent and strict adherence to safe surgical principles are important to optimize clinical outcomes. Furthermore, most intraoperative complications, if recognized, can be addressed intraoperatively to enable placement of the device at the time of initial surgery. Men with significant corporal fibrosis due to Peyronie's disease, prior prosthesis explantation and priapism, and men who have undergone construction of a neophallus, as well as men who receive concurrent continence surgery, are complex cases requiring additional care and advanced techniques to obtain optimal surgical outcomes. Variability in patient care - in terms of postoperative antibiotic use, pain management, scrotal care, and cycling of the penile prosthesis implant - must be reduced to enable optimization and assessment of outcomes across patient groups.

Prevention of Penile Prosthesis Infection

INTRODUCTION

Management protocols for treatment of severe erectile dysfunction have changed little in the last 20 years. Most algorithms consider penile prostheses as the last option of treatment in patients who have failed medical management. Despite multiple advances in current devices, prosthetic infection remains the most feared complication by implanting surgeons and patients. This report tries to make a compilation of the factors that can be impacted to prevent penile implant infections, and to make penile implantation a safer and more reliable way to solve an erection deficit.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

List events related to the surgical act (pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative) that are related to the risk of infection to contextualize possible actions/measures used to avoid prosthetic infection.

RECENT FINDINGS

The impact of coated implants on reduction of infection rates. The recommendation to use chlorhexidine-based solutions over iodine solution for preoperative skin preps. Appears to be no difference in infection rates according to the approach chosen by the surgeon (infrapubic vs penoscrotal). The change in the microbial colonies that are colonizing implants in recent years are dramatic. Lack of evidence of which solutions to use for salvage or revision washout surgery: Chemical eradication or mechanical lavage cleansing?. Despite the importance of metabolic control in the literature, there is a disparity in exact glycemic values ​prior to the intervention in our literature. Factors such as preparation of the operative site, presence of comorbidities or previous surgeries, surgical time, or additional maneuvers during surgery can negatively impact the final result of penile prosthetic surgery.

Safety and Efficacy of Inflatable Penile Prostheses for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: Evidence to Date

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common problem, and prevalence rates are expected to rise as life expectancy increases worldwide. In more severe cases of ED, penile prosthesis implantation has been an excellent option for patients. Over the past few decades, significant design improvements have been made to the penile prosthesis and modifications to surgical technique to improve clinical outcomes. The purpose of this review is to summarize the safety and efficacy of FDA-approved penile implants in the US market. Design modifications have greatly improved the safety and reliability of the implant. Development of improved surgical techniques has decreased intraoperative injuries and reservoir-related complications. With its high overall satisfaction rates and low risk of complications, the inflatable penile prosthesis remains an excellent option for patients with erectile dysfunction.

MRI of Penile Prostheses: The Challenge of Diagnosing Postsurgical Complications

Penile implants are surgically inserted devices used for the treatment of erectile disfunction. Improvements in surgical techniques and in the manufacturing of these implants have reduced the risk of intra- and postoperative complications and increased the popularity and use of this therapeutic option. Routine imaging is not recommended before penile prosthesis surgery. Malleable penile prostheses use noninflatable shafts inserted into each corpus cavernosum, which appear hypointense on T1- and T2-weighted MR images. Inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) may consist of two or three parts and are composed of two cylinders inserted into the corpora cavernosa that are filled with a saline solution to produce rigidity. These appear homogeneously T2 hyperintense and the silicone-based covering of the cylinders appears T2 hypointense, thereby clearly delineating the cylinders. In the case of three-piece IPPs, a reservoir containing the fluid may be placed in the pelvis. The most frequent complications are related to infection and mechanical failure, the latter being more common in IPPs because more components are involved. Less common complications include malpositioning. Detection and management of postoperative complications are challenging, and MRI plays a crucial role as it permits evaluation of the positioning and configuration of the prosthesis components, as well as assists in functional evaluation of IPPs when images are obtained of both the flaccid and inflated states. ^©RSNA, 2021.

Penile implant surgery-managing complications

Penile prosthesis surgery represents the end-stage treatment for erectile dysfunction. It is conventionally used only in cases of erectile dysfunction refractory to pharmacological treatments or vacuum constriction devices. Contemporary literature suggests that penile prothesis surgery is associated with a high satisfaction rate and a low complication profile. However, it must be appreciated that the complications of surgery can have devastating consequences on a patient’s quality of life and satisfaction and include infection, prosthesis malfunction, penile corporal perforation and penile length loss. Several factors – such as appropriate patient selection, methodical preoperative assessment and patient optimization, specific intraoperative protocols and postoperative recommendations – can reduce the risk of surgical complications. This narrative review discusses the diagnosis and management of both intraoperative and postoperative complications of penile prosthesis surgery.

Imaging review of penile pathologies encountered in the emergency department

While penile pathology is uncommon, prompt diagnosis and treatment of emergent and urgent penile pathology are necessary to prevent complications. This paper will review the imaging findings of the most common critical penile pathologies, including traumatic, vascular, infectious, foreign body-related, and urethral pathology, in addition to penile prosthesis complications. Each entity will be discussed in the context of presentation and treatment and complications of each pathology will be discussed.

HbA1c over 8.5% is not predictive of increased infection rate following penile prosthesis implant surgery in diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction

Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risk of erectile dysfunction. Penile prosthesis implantation is an efficient therapeutic option for erectile dysfunction, but not without risk, as infection remains a prominent concern. This study investigates diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for penile prosthesis implantation infection and the relationship between haemoglobinA1c levels and infection rates. All diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction who underwent penile prosthesis implantation surgery between January 2012 and November 2019 at Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar, were included in this retrospective observational study. A total of 599 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction had penile prosthesis implantation. Mean age was 59.69 ± 31.19. Penile prosthesis implantation infection rate was 0.83% (5/599), while the mean haemoglobinA1c level was 7.58 ± 1.45 mmol/l (range: 4.1-12.6). A comparison between diabetic patients with penile prosthesis implantation infection and those without infection revealed no significant difference in the level of haemoglobinA1c between the two groups with mean haemoglobinA1c in patients with infected implants 7.14 and 7.59 for noninfected (p = 0.491). Limitations include retrospective single-centre design and low-infection rates reducing sample number. Penile prosthesis implantation infection rate in a large series of diabetic patients was low with no significant association between haemoglobinA1c level and penile prosthesis implantation infection observed.

Do Antifungals and Local Anesthetic Affect the Efficacy of Antibiotic Dipping Solution?

BACKGROUND

The rates of infection after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) range from 1% to 3%; however, with changes in antibiotic practice intraoperatively and the incorporation of local anesthetic dips, it is unclear whether this incidence of infection is affected.

AIM

To evaluate whether the utilization of local anesthetic dips and antifungal solutions affect the efficacy of previously established dips across multiple species and strains.

METHODS

Strains of four different species of bacteria and one fungus were prepared in a standardized confluency. A standardized, and sterile protocol was used to punch out 6mm circular discs from the reservoir of a Coloplast Titan device. The discs were submerged in a standardized concentration of antimicrobials (combinations of Bactrim, Rifampin + Gentamicin, Vancomycin, Zosyn, and Amphotericin B) and plated. The zone of inhibition (ZOI) was measured at 24, 48, and 72 hours. Five repetitions of each organism was performed (>1700 discs), and the mean ZOI was calculated. Saline and DMSO were used as control on each plate.

OUTCOMES

Main outcome was the ZOI identified with each antibiotic solution, and the secondary outcome was the efficacy of the antibiotic over the course of 72 hours.

RESULTS

Difference in antibiotic efficacy was seen when each bacterial species was evaluated separately, with rifampin and gentamicin having less efficacy towards all organisms other than S. epidermidis. When looking specifically at the Candida species, amphotericin B was significantly better than other antibiotic solutions. In regards to efficacy of antibiotics over 72 hours, all treatment groups showed a decrease in ZOI over time. However, treatment groups that included rifampin demonstrated the ability to inhibit S. aureus and S. epidermidis over the 72-hour period.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

To improve clinical practice and alleviate concerns that incorporation of local anesthetic and antifungals may decrease the efficacy of antibiotic solutions.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

A major strength of the study is that it is the most robust and scientifically sound study performed on this topic with approximately 1700 repetitions. It is also the first study of its kind to include a wide spectrum of bacterial and fungal strains and antibiotic solutions along with temporal data on drug elution over a 72-hour period. A limitation of the study is the in vitro model, and this needs to be validated in a clinical setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Dipping prosthetics in antifungal and local anesthetic does not decrease the efficacy of the antimicrobials. The drug elution capabilities of the hydrophilic coating lasts primarily for 24-48hours. Mishra K, Bukavina L, Long L, et al. Do Antifungals and Local Anesthetic Affect the Efficacy of Antibiotic Dipping Solution?. J Sex Med 2021;18:966-973.

Fundamentals of prosthetic urology

The field of prosthetic urology demonstrates the striking impact that simple devices can have on quality of life. Penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter implantation are the cornerstone procedures on which this specialty focuses. Modern research largely concentrates on decreasing the rates of complication and infection, as the current devices offer superior rates of satisfaction when revision is not necessary. These techniques are also able to salvage sexual function and continence in more difficult patient populations including female-to-male transgender individuals, those with ischemic priapism, and those with erectile dysfunction and incontinence secondary to prostatectomy. This review summarizes modern techniques, outcomes, and complications in the field of prosthetic urology.

[Penile prostheses: Description of a series of implants with and without dilatation of the corpora cavernosa]

INTRODUCTION

Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation is the treatment of choice for refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). They show a high satisfaction rate (75%-100%) and a complication rate that varies between 2.1% and 28.8%. The standard surgical technique includes dilatation of the corpora cavernosa (CC) prior to the insertion of the cylinders. This step takes time and is critical for the occurrence of complications. The aim of this study is to describe the results of a series of PP implanted using the techniques with and without dilatation of the CC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One-hundred and 20 patients with refractory ED in whom a PP was implanted by 2 surgeons in different centers. Comorbidities, operative characteristics, satisfaction and postoperative complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

The average age was 61±9.6 years. The most prevalent comorbidities were: history of radical prostatectomy, high-blood pressure and diabetes mellitus. Forty-two malleable and 78 hydraulic prostheses were implanted. Eleven patients had a previous PP. The median operative time was 70minutes (35-140). The satisfaction reported was 95.8%. Ten patients presented complications. In the group in which the surgery was performed without dilatation of the CC (n=80), the operative time was shorter (62.5minutes [35-105] versus 90minutes [60-140] respectively, p<0.0001). There was no difference in complications (p=0.73) or levels of satisfaction (p=0.196) when comparing the technique with and without dilatation of the CC.

CONCLUSION

In our series, a shorter operative time was observed with the technique without dilatation of the CC, but there were no differences in complications. A prospective and randomized study is required to make a stronger recommendation regarding to dilatation of the CC.

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.

Iatrogenic wounds: a common but often overlooked problem

Iatrogenic wounds are a common but often overlooked concept. They can lead to increases in hospital stays, therapy costs, repeat surgeries, and implant removal. If not handled properly, these wounds have a very poor prognosis and will cause serious physical and psychological harm to patients, which may result in medicolegal disputes. In recent years, the incidence of iatrogenic wounds has increased because of (1) an increase in the population of older people owing to increased life expectancy, (2) the continued expansion of surgical indications, (3) an increase in difficult surgeries, and (4) the constant emergence and application of new implantable biomaterials and other therapies. Thus, there is a pressing clinical need to improve the therapy of iatrogenic wounds. However, the difficulty in treating these wounds is considerable due to the emergence of drug-resistant bacteria, the high number of patients with metabolic diseases, and complex complications in patients. In particular, iatrogenic wounds caused by surgical site infections due to implantable biomaterials could lead to material leakage and conflicts regarding whether to retain or remove the implants. This review provides a definition of iatrogenic wounds, describes their characteristics, classifies them, and provides information about the importance of analyzing iatrogenic wounds. We hope that this review will provide useful information for the diagnosis and treatment of iatrogenic wounds and help to reduce their incidence in the future.

An update on: long-term outcomes of penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Penile prosthesis placement is the gold standard for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) refractory to medical therapy; however, limited data exist on the long-term outcomes of these devices.

AREAS COVERED

A PubMed search focused on long-term outcomes of penile prosthetics was performed. Studies with a follow-up of less than 5 years were excluded. Included studies were arranged chronologically by implant date to identify trends in device lifetime. Data were further scrutinized to separate device failure secondary to mechanical malfunction from device failure secondary to infection.

EXPERT OPINION

Limited data prevent accurate 15-year predictions for modern prosthetics. The 5- and 10-year overall survival of modern prosthetics is estimated to be 90.4% and 86.6%, respectively. Infection rates are estimated to be 1.5% and 1.8% at 8 and 10 years, respectively. While great strides have been made in device design, there is still potential for advancement in both infection rate reduction and mechanical improvement. The combination of increased collaboration between implanting urologists and engineers from prosthetic device companies and improved, prospectively collected data will usher prosthetic urology into its next era.

Innovating Incrementally: Development of the Modern Inflatable Penile Prosthesis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) was introduced in 1973. Since that time, the fundamental design of the IPP has not changed, but numerous improvements to the device, surgery, and peri-operative management have resulted in a modern IPP with excellent reliability, infection control, safety profile, and user experience.

RECENT FINDINGS

We describe important modifications to the IPP and review available data assessing the impact of these changes. We also discuss possible changes to the IPP that would result in continued improvement. Since its introduction in 1973, changes to the penile prosthesis have resulted in significant improvements in reliability, infection control, safety, and user experience. Design changes are anticipated to continue, resulting in a better and more versatile penile prosthesis.

Infection Prevention Considerations for Complex Penile Prosthesis Recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to critically analyze and summarize recent studies in the area of penile prosthesis surgery outcomes with a focus on infection prevention in high-risk patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Reduction of surgical time in complex prosthesis surgery may reduce infection risk. Concomitant implant surgery is not associated with increased infection risk. Certain immunocompromised patients may be more likely to have penile implant infections, but these may not include patients with well-controlled HIV, well-controlled diabetes, or transplant recipients. Substance abuse is correlated with increased risk of infection after penile implant surgery. Careful patient selection and preoperative optimization can reduce infection risk in spinal cord injury patients. In the last 5 years, there have been several important studies investigating the risk of penile prosthesis infection in complex patients, clarifying which patient categories are at increased risk and how that risk can be mitigated.

CT imaging of inflatable penile prosthesis complications: a pictorial essay

PURPOSE

Inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) are widely used in the United States, for patients with erectile dysfunction refractory to other treatments. Complications subsequent to IPP insertion include infection, hematoma, fluid leak, component (cylinder/pump/reservoir) complications, and retained previous IPP components. Radiologists are often called upon to identify and characterize these complications utilizing CT prior to intervention. Our paper aims to provide a guide to familiarize radiologists with normal IPP component imaging and review the CT findings of commonly encountered complications.

METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively reviewed CT reports with descriptions of IPPs from 108 patients. We collected CT images of normal IPP components as well as reevaluated the CT findings of 33 patients with an IPP complication and correlated with immediately subsequent operative report.

RESULTS

The CT appearance of appropriately positioned normal IPP components in asymptomatic patients and each complication were described and compared to previous literature.

CONCLUSIONS

CT is a very useful modality to assess an IPP-related complication. It is inexpensive, fast, and immediately available in emergent situations, e.g., infection, hematoma, and component erosion. Additionally, CT is very sensitive and makes it easier to diagnose a system leak. It can identify most cylinder complications and pump malposition and can be extremely helpful to the surgeon in preoperative planning if revision is needed. After this review, the radiologist should be able to identify normal IPP components and their complications.

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.