The 51-60 cm H2O Artificial Urinary Sphincter Pressure Regulating Balloon: Indications and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To describe the role and long-term outcomes of using the 51-60cm H2O pressure regulating balloon (PRB) in male patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS).

METHODS

From 2005-2021, 90 patients with a variety of urethral risk factors underwent AUS placement with use of the low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB to treat stress incontinence. Patient demographics, indication for use of the 51-60 cm H2O PRB, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were examined and Pearson's chi squared test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to identify associations with future revisions, erosion, and mechanical failure.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were included in the study. After median follow-up of 46.6months (range: 6-146months), 4 (4.44%) patients developed an erosion-related complication that required device removal, 4 developed an infection, and 3 underwent surgery for pump relocation. One patient had a reported mechanical failure of unknown source. Thirty patients underwent revision surgery to reduce incontinence. Of the 4 patients with erosion, 1 was due to iatrogenic catheterization. The remaining 3 had numerous urethral risk factors. Univariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of cuff erosion, infection, and revision in patients with a 51-60 cm H2O PRB. No significant associations were found including prior pelvic radiation, age at AUS placement, presence of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), prior AUS erosion, or previous urethroplasty.

CONCLUSION

The low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB can be used in high-risk male patients with urinary incontinence with low rates of complications including erosion, infection, and mechanical failure. While patients may choose to undergo future revisional surgery to improve continence, the 51-60 cm H2O PRB should be considered as the initial PRB in patients with urethral risk factors.

Suprapubic Lipectomy and Placement of a Three-piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Penile length loss is often observed in patients with erectile dysfunction and obesity. In patients with a prominent infrapubic fat pad, the excess fat can further reduce perceived penile length.1 As others have reported, concurrent suprapubic lipectomy and placement of a penile implant has been shown to be an effective way of exposing phallic length in this challenging patient population.2,3 OBJECTIVE: In this video, we present surgical technique and initial outcomes of concurrent suprapubic lipectomy and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement in patients that have erectile dysfunction and lipodystrophy of the mons pubis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed an institutional review board-approved prosthetic database of male patients that underwent placement of a 3-piece IPP and concurrent suprapubic lipectomy from 2020 to 2023. Intraoperative complications and postoperative outcomes were collated and analyzed. To perform this operation, an elliptical incision is made around the suprapubic fat pad that extends to the base of the penis inferiorly. Laterally the incision is carried just medial to the inferior margin of the iliac crest. Sharp dissection and electrocautery are used to dissect the fat pad free. A layer of areolar tissue is preserved above the layer of the fascia to prevent seroma formation. For larger blood vessels, vascular clips are used to ensure adequate hemostasis. After removal of the fat pad, placement of the penile prosthesis can proceed as one would through an infrapubic approach. After the device is placed, the tissue flaps based on the external pudendal vessels are inspected for adequate vascularity. Penetrating towel clamps are used to approximate the skin edges from lateral to medial so that the midline closure can be approximated accurately. 0-PDS is used to anchor the flap superiorly into the lower edge of the abdominal fold. The incision is then closed in multiple layers of absorbable suture from lateral to medial. A skin stapler or suture is then used to approximate the skin and the penis is wrapped with a compressive dressing.

RESULTS

Nine patients underwent the combined surgery. There were no intraoperative complications. In follow-up, 1 patient developed an infection-related complication that required device removal and immediate replacement. The remaining 8 did well postoperatively with improved dorsal phallic length with no infection or device-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Concurrent suprapubic lipectomy and placement of a 3-piece IPP is a safe and reproducible technique for the treatment of suprapubic lipodystrophy, buried penis, and refractory ED.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-powered Large Language Models Application in Disseminating Appropriate and Readable Health Information in Urology

PURPOSE

The Internet is a ubiquitous source of medical information, and natural language processors are gaining popularity as alternatives to traditional search engines. However, suitability of their generated content for patients is not well understood. We aimed to evaluate the appropriateness and readability of natural language processor-generated responses to urology-related medical inquiries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighteen patient questions were developed based on Google Trends and were used as inputs in ChatGPT. Three categories were assessed: oncologic, benign, and emergency. Questions in each category were either treatment or sign/symptom-related questions. Three native English-speaking Board-Certified urologists independently assessed appropriateness of ChatGPT outputs for patient counseling using accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity as proxies for appropriateness. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesh-Kincaid Reading Grade Level formulas. Additional measures were created based on validated tools and assessed by 3 independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Fourteen of 18 (77.8%) responses were deemed appropriate, with clarity having the most 4 and 5 scores (P = .01). There was no significant difference in appropriateness of the responses between treatments and symptoms or between different categories of conditions. The most common reason from urologists for low scores was responses lacking information-sometimes vital information. The mean (SD) Flesch Reading Ease score was 35.5 (SD=10.2) and the mean Flesh-Kincaid Reading Grade Level score was 13.5 (1.74). Additional quality assessment scores showed no significant differences between different categories of conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite impressive capabilities, natural language processors have limitations as sources of medical information. Refinement is crucial before adoption for this purpose.

Predictors of Male Sexual Dysfunction in Urologic Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (UCPPS), Other Chronic Pain Syndromes, and Healthy Controls in the Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain (MAPP) Research Network

BACKGROUND

Sexual dysfunction (SD), including erectile (ED) and ejaculatory dysfunction, is associated with diminished quality of life (QoL) in men with UCPPS (chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) and/or interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS)).

AIM

We sought to compare SD among male patients with UCPPS, other chronic pain conditions (positive controls, PC), and healthy controls (HC) without chronic pain, and to evaluate the association of comorbidities, psychosocial factors, and urologic factors of SD in all 3 groups.

METHODS

Baseline data from male UCPPS participants, PC (irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia) and HC enrolled in the Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain (MAPP) Research Network Epidemiology and Phenotyping Study were included in the analysis. Sexual function was assessed using the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function Domain (IIEFEF) and Ejaculatory Function Scale (EFS). Male ED was defined as a composite IIEF-EF score <21. Higher EFS score indicated worse sexual dysfunction; no threshold to define SD was identified for the EFS. Multivariable logistic and linear regression was used to investigate associations of comorbidities, psychosocial factors, and urologic factors with ED and ejaculatory, respectively.

OUTCOMES

Comorbidities, genital pain, and psychosocial factors are associated with SD across the study population and male patients with UCPPS had a high prevalence of ED and greater ejaculatory dysfunction.

RESULTS

There were 191 males with UCPPS; 44 PC; and 182 HC. Males with UCPPS had worse SD compared to PC and HC including lower mean IIEF-EF scores, greater degree of ejaculatory dysfunction, and lower quality of sexual relationships. Among all 3 cohorts, depression, stress, and pain were associated with ED in univariable and multivariable analysis, as was diabetes mellitus. Pain in the genitalia, severity of urinary symptoms, depression, stress, and history of childhood sexual trauma were associated with ejaculatory dysfunction in univariable and multivariable analysis.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

A multidisciplinary approach that addresses the identified risk factors for SD may improve overall QoL in males with UCPPS.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

Our study is strengthened by its use of validated, patient-reported questionnaires and inclusion of healthy and positive controls. Our understanding of the role of IC in this study is limited because only 1 patient in the study had IC/BPS as a sole diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to healthy controls and patients with other chronic pain conditions, males with UCPPS experience higher degrees of SD, including erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction. Loh-Doyle JC, Stephens-Shields AJ, Rolston R, et al. Predictors of Male Sexual Dysfunction in Urologic Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (UCPPS), Other Chronic Pain Syndromes, and Healthy Controls in the Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain (MAPP) Research Network. J Sex Med 2022;19:1804-1812.

Patient Reported Sexual Function Outcomes in Male Patients Following Open Radical Cystoprostatectomy and Urinary Diversion

OBJECTIVE

To report sexual health outcomes in male patients undergoing open radical cystoprostatectomy using a validated questionnaire.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Beginning in 2017, male patients were asked to complete a validated questionnaire during scheduled post-cystectomy clinic visits that assessed sexual function using the 5 item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and supplemental questions which evaluated libido, orgasm, partner interest, and adequacy of pre-operative counselling. Baseline data and functional outcomes were compared and multivariable analysis performed.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients who met inclusion criteria completed the questionnaire. Pre-operative IIEF-5 was available in 78 patients with a median score of 16 (IQR:5-23). In those patients, median age at cystectomy was 68.9 years (IQR:60.2-72.4) and median duration of follow-up was 17.3 months (IQR:6.3-28.7). Median IIEF-5 score at time of survey completion was 1 (IQR:1-11). Increasing age, shorter follow-up duration, insufficient counselling, and absence of partner interest were predictive of lower scores. Younger age, pre-operative erectile function, and neurovascular preservation were predictive of a higher IIEF-5 score on univariate and multivariate analysis. Median libido score was 2 "low" (IQR:1-3) and ability to orgasm was reported by 34 (43.6%) patients. Neurovascular preservation (OR:3.03 95% CI:1.10-8.26, P = .03) and sufficient preoperative counselling (OR:3.078 95% CI:1.17-8.098, P = .02) were associated with preserved ability to orgasm. Libido was influenced by partner interest (OR 11.7, 95% CI:3.793-6.14, P <.0001).

CONCLUSION

Sexual dysfunction after radical cystoprostatectomy is prevalent with many contributing factors. As such, establishing appropriate expectations and goals during preoperative counseling, performing neurovascular preservation when appropriate, and readily identifying and treating dysfunction in follow-up may improve sexual recovery.

Outcomes of Alternative Reservoir Placement in the Lateral Retroperitoneum During Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement

OBJECTIVES

To describe outcomes of reservoir placement, exchange, and extraction from the lateral retroperitoneum (LR) in complex patients with a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent placement of an IPP from 2009 to 2019. Patients with placement of the reservoir in the LR were identified. Intraoperative complications during reservoir placement, exchange, or removal, reservoir-related outcomes, and secondary device-related outcomes were collated and compared to patients who underwent traditional Space of Retzius reservoir placement.

RESULTS

A total of 587 men underwent primary IPP placement with 321 patients undergoing reservoir placement in the SOR and 266 in the LR. No significant differences were found in intra-operative reservoir-related outcomes (P=.272) between the 2 groups during placement, replacement, or extraction. Bowel injury occurred in 1 patient in the LR group during placement. No significant differences were found in postoperative reservoir complications (P= .534). Both groups each had one instance of patient reported bulge and pain at reservoir site (P= .6777). Two (0.6%) patients in the SOR group and 3 (1.1%) patients in the LR group had a reservoir failure or leak. There was a trend towards a lower rate of device infections in the LR group (1.9%) compared to the SOR group (4.7%) (P= .063). There were no significant differences in overall device mechanical failure rates between both groups (P= .919).

CONCLUSIONS

Reservoir placement in the LR is safe in patients with complex pelvic anatomy with equivalent device durability and no difference in surgical outcomes compared to standard retropubic reservoir placement.

Penile Implant Considerations in the Bladder Cancer Survivor

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

After radical cystoprostatectomy, patients often develop erectile dysfunction refractory to first- and second-line treatments. In this review, we summarize and analyze the literature describing the technical considerations and outcomes of penile implant surgery in bladder cancer patients with history of radical cystectomy and urinary diversion.

RECENT FINDINGS

Penile prosthesis surgery in patients after radical cystectomy and urinary diversion has been infrequently described in the literature. Recent studies have shown that the three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis can be placed safely after significant prior intraabdominal surgery due to the development and refinement of several techniques to place the reservoir. Further studies are needed to objectively determine the impact of penile prosthetic surgery on functional outcomes in this historically undertreated yet increasingly significant patient population. As health-related quality of life outcomes continue to gain increasing importance after radical cystectomy, urologists should offer motivated bladder cancer survivors the inflatable penile prosthesis as the treatment of choice for refractory erectile dysfunction due to its safety and unmatched ability to restore erectile function.

Dual Prosthetic Implantation After Radical Cystoprostatectomy and Neobladder: Outcomes of the Inflatable Penile Prosthesis and Artificial Urinary Sphincter in Bladder Cancer Survivors

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of radical cystectomy and orthotopic neobladder (NB) diversion on device-related outcomes in patients who undergo subsequent placement of both, an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using an institutional prosthetic database, we identified 39 patients who underwent radical cystectomy and NB and subsequent implantation of both prosthetic devices from 2003 to 2017. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes including prosthetic infection, mechanical failure, revision surgery, and functional outcomes were examined and compared to an appropriate matched group of patients (n = 48, non-neobladder group).

RESULTS

No intraoperative complications were observed. After median follow-up of 94 months (12-177 months), 1 patient developed an infection of their penile prosthesis and 4 patients developed an erosion of their AUS. In each case, the infection did not involve the other device. Two patients required revision surgery of their penile prosthesis due to mechanical failure (reservoir leak, n = 1; cylinder aneurysm, n = 1). Twenty-one patients underwent elective revision surgery to improve continence (cuff downsizing, n = 18; pressure-regulating balloon exchange, n = 3). There were 6 cases of AUS mechanical failure. No reservoir-related complications such as herniation or erosion were observed. Compared to the control group of non-neobladder patients, there were no significant differences in prosthetic infection, mechanical failure, and revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

The AUS and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis can coexist safely in patients with NB without an increased risk of device-related complications.

Patient experiences and preferences with ureteral stent removal

PURPOSE

Ureteral stent removal is a source of patient morbidity. We surveyed 599 patients to evaluate their experiences and identify the preferred method of stent removal.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Visitors to a kidney stone website were invited to participate. Respondents were asked how their ureteral stent was removed? Pain during and after the procedure, patient experiences, and preferences regarding stent removal were queried. Chi-square and ANOVA tests were used to identify significant differences among removal methods.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-one respondents were included in the study. The majority of stents (44%) were removed by office cystoscopy while 39% had their stents removed by string. Mean pain during stent removal was 4.8 out of 10 with 57% reporting moderate-to-severe pain levels of 4 or more. Removal by office cystoscopy resulted in the highest experienced pain (5.3). Thirty-two percent reported delayed severe pain after stent removal, including 9% who returned for emergency care. Removal by string resulted in more emergency room visits when compared to cystoscopy. Willingness to undergo the same removal technique was lowest for those who underwent office cystoscopy and highest for operating room cystoscopy. Being informed of why a stent was placed and the removal process was of high priority for respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients report moderate-to-severe pain with stent removal and a third report delayed significant pain after stent removal. Variations exist in the patient experience with stent removal based on the method used. More research is needed to identify effective ways to prevent or manage stent-removal-related adverse events.