The International Penile Prosthesis Implant Consensus Forum: clinical recommendations and surgical principles on the inflatable 3-piece penile prosthesis implant.
Journal
Nature reviews. Urology
ISSN: 1759-4820
Titre abrégé: Nat Rev Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101500082
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2022
09 2022
Historique:
accepted:
04
05
2022
pubmed:
18
6
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
entrez:
17
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35711059
doi: 10.1038/s41585-022-00607-z
pii: 10.1038/s41585-022-00607-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
534-546Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Scott, F. B., Bradley, W. E. & Timm, G. W. Management of erectile impotence: use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology 2, 80–82 (1973).
pubmed: 4766860
doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(73)90224-0
Chung, E. Penile prosthesis implant: scientific advances and technological innovations over the last four decades. Transl. Androl. Urol. 6, 37–45 (2017).
pubmed: 28217449
pmcid: 5313299
doi: 10.21037/tau.2016.12.06
Osmonov, D., Christopher, A. N. & Blecher, G. A. Clinical recommendations from the European Society of Sexual Medicine exploring partner expectations, satisfaction in male and phalloplasty cohorts, the impact of penile length, girth and implant type, reservoir placement, and influence of comorbidities and social circumstances. J. Sex. Med 17, 210–237 (2020).
pubmed: 31812683
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.10.016
Levine, L. A. et al. Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. J. Sex. Med. 13, 489–518 (2016).
pubmed: 27045255
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.017
The Boston Scientific AMS 700 series. https://www.bostonscientific.com/en-US/products/penile-prosthesis/ams-700-inflatable-penile-prosthesis.html (2021).
The Coloplast Titan series. https://www.coloplastmenshealth.com/erectile-dysfunction/penile-implants/titan-inflatable-penile-implant/ (2021).
The Zephyr ZSI475 series. https://www.zsimplants.ch/en/products-en/erectile-dysfunction (2021).
The Rigicon Infla10 series. https://www.rigicon.com/inflatable-penile-prosthesis (2021).
Guyatt, G. H., GRADE Working Group et al. Going from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 336, 1049 (2008).
pubmed: 18467413
pmcid: 2376019
doi: 10.1136/bmj.39493.646875.AE
Porst, H. et al. SOP conservative (medical and mechanical) treatment of erectile dysfunction. J. Sex. Med 10, 130–171 (2013).
pubmed: 23343170
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12023
Chung, E. et al. Evidence-based management guidelines on Peyronie’s disease. J. Sex. Med 13, 905–923 (2016).
pubmed: 27215686
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.04.062
Meuleman, E. J. et al. Diagnostic tests for male erectile dysfunction revisited. Committee consensus report of the international consultation in sexual medicine. J. Sex. Med 7, 2375–2381 (2010).
pubmed: 20487240
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01841.x
Hebert, K. J. & Kohler, T. S. Penile prosthesis infection: myths and realities. World J. Mens Health 37, 276–287 (2019).
pubmed: 30929326
pmcid: 6704299
doi: 10.5534/wjmh.180123
Scherzer, N. D., Dick, B., Gabrielson, A. T., Alzweri, L. M. & Hellstrom, W. J. G. Penile prosthesis complications: planning, prevention, and decision making. Sex. Med. Rev. 7, 349–359 (2019).
pubmed: 30033128
doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.04.002
BAUS. https://www.baus.org.uk/_userfiles/pages/files/Patients/Leaflets/Penile%20prostheses.pdf (2020).
SMSNA. https://www.smsna.org/V1/images/SMSNAIPP_policy.pdf (2021).
Sunaryo, P. L., Colaco, M. & Terlecki, R. Penile prostheses and the litigious patient: a legal database review. J. Sex. Med. 11, 2589–2594 (2014).
pubmed: 25070914
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12649
Chung, E. Penile prosthesis implant in the special populations: diabetics, neurogenic conditions, fibrotic cases, concurrent urinary incontinence, and salvage implants. Asian J. Androl. 22, 39–44 (2020).
pubmed: 31793445
doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_127_19
Trost, L. W., Baum, N. & Hellstrom, W. J. G. Managing the difficult penile prosthesis patient. J. Sex. Med 10, 893–907 (2013).
pubmed: 23551538
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12115
Gon, L. M. et al. A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role. BMC Urol. 21, 35 (2021).
pubmed: 33691670
pmcid: 7945372
doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00730-2
Pearson-Stuttard, J., Blundell, S., Harris, T., Cook, D. G. & Critchley, J. Diabetes and infection: assessing the association with glycemic control in population-based studies. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 4, 148–158 (2016).
pubmed: 26656292
doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00379-4
Habous, M. et al. Defining a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level that predicts increased risk of penile implant infection. BJU Int 121, 293–300 (2018).
pubmed: 29124870
doi: 10.1111/bju.14076
Dick, B. P., Yousif, A., Raheem, O. & Hellstrom, W. J. G. Does lowering the haemoglobin A1c reduce penile prosthesis infection: a systematic review. Sex. Med Rev. S2050-0521, 30068–30068 (2020).
Huynh, L. M., Huang, E., El-Khatib, F. M., Gross, M. S. & Yafi, F. A. A systematic review of literature regarding whether immediate preoperative haemoglobin A1c or serum glucose are risk factors for infection following penile prosthesis implantation. Urology 152, 12–54 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.02.009
Talib, R. et al. HbA1c over 8.5% is not predictive of increased infection rate following penile prosthesis implant in diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction. Andrologia 53, e14132 (2021).
pubmed: 34062008
doi: 10.1111/and.14132
Osman, M. M. et al. Immediate preoperative blood glucose and hemoglobin a1c levels are not predictive of postoperative infections in diabetic men undergoing penile prosthesis implant. Int. J. Impot. Res 33, 296–302 (2021).
pubmed: 32203432
doi: 10.1038/s41443-020-0261-5
Carvajal, A., Benavides, J., Garcia-Perdomo, H. A. & Henry, G. D. Risk factors association with penile prosthesis infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Impot. Res 32, 587–597 (2020).
pubmed: 32015525
doi: 10.1038/s41443-020-0232-x
Aniskevich, S., Renew, J. R., Chadha, R. M. & Irizarry-Alvarado, J. M. Pharmacology and perioperative considerations for diabetes mellitus medications. Curr. Clin. Pharm. 12, 157–163 (2017).
doi: 10.2174/1574884712666170810115847
WHO guidelines for safe surgery 2009: Safe surgery saves lives. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006. Objective 6, the team will consistently use methods known to minimize the minimize the risk for surgical site infection. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143246 (2021).
Pineda, M. & Burnett, A. L. Penile prosthesis infections — a review of risk factors, prevention, and treatment. Sex. Med. Rev. 4, 389–398 (2016).
pubmed: 27872031
doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.03.003
Mandava, S. H., Serefoglu, E. C., Freier, M. T., Wilson, S. K. & Hellstrom, W. J. Infection retardant coated inflatable penile prostheses decrease the incidence of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Urol. 188, 1855–1860 (2012).
pubmed: 22999690
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.022
Wolf, J. S. Jr et al. Urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis best practice policy panel. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J. Urol. 179, 1379–1390 (2008).
pubmed: 18280509
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.068
Herati, A. S. & Lo, E. M. Penile prosthesis biofilm formation and emerging therapies against them. Trans. Androl. Urol. 7, 960–967 (2018).
doi: 10.21037/tau.2018.09.05
Katz, B. F. et al. Use of a preoperative checklist reduces risk of penile prosthesis infection. J. Urol. 192, 130–135 (2014).
pubmed: 24384159
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.044
Gross, M. S. et al. Multicenter investigation of the micro-organisms involved in penile prosthesis infection: an analysis of the efficacy of the AUA and EAU guidelines for penile prosthesis prophylaxis. J. Sex. Med 14, 455–463 (2017).
pubmed: 28189561
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.01.007
Darouiche, R. O. et al. North American consensus document on infection of penile prostheses. Urology 82, 937–942 (2013).
pubmed: 23958508
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.05.048
Giles, C., Lamont-Friedrich, S. J., Michl, T. D., Griesser, H. J. & Coad, B. R. The importance of fungal pathogens and antifungal coatings in medical device infections. Biotechnol. Adv. 36, 264–280 (2018).
pubmed: 29199134
doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2017.11.010
Nehra, A. et al. The Princeton III consensus recommendations for the management of erectile dysfunction and cardiovascular disease. Mayo Clin. Proc. 87, 766–778 (2012).
pubmed: 22862865
pmcid: 3498391
doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.06.015
Scherzer, N. D., Dick, B., Gabrielson, A. T., Alzweri, L. M. & Hellstrom, W. J. G. Penile prosthesis complications: planning, prevention, and decision making. Sex. Med. Rev. 7, 349–359 (2019).
pubmed: 30033128
doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.04.002
Garber, B. B. & Bickell, M. Delayed postoperative hematoma formation after inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. J. Sex. Med 12, 265–269 (2015).
pubmed: 25349141
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12728
Culkin, D. J. et al. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in urological practice: ICUD/AUA review paper. J. Urol. 192, 1026–1034 (2014).
pubmed: 24859439
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.103
Lotan, Y. et al. Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology 62, 918–921 (2003).
pubmed: 14624920
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00665-4
Sharma, D. & Smith, R. P. Troubleshooting intraoperative complications of penile prosthesis placement. Trans. Androl. Urol. 6, S892–S897 (2017).
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.07.13
Oberlin, D. T. et al. National practice patterns of treatment of erectile dysfunction with penile prosthesis implantation. J. Urol. 193, 2040–2044 (2015).
pubmed: 25457477
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.11.095
Onyeji, I. C. et al. Impact of surgeon case volume on reoperation rates after inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. J. Urol. 197, 223–229 (2017).
pubmed: 27545573
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.083
Henry, G. D. et al. Centers of excellence concept and penile prostheses: an outcome analysis. J. Urol. 181, 1264–1268 (2009).
pubmed: 19152945
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.157
Kashanian, J. A. et al. Trends in penile prosthetics: influence of patient demographics, surgeon volume, and hospital volume on type of penile prosthesis inserted in New York State. J. Sex. Med 15, 245–250 (2018).
pubmed: 29292061
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.12.005
Palmisano, F. et al. Comparison of infrapubic vs penoscrotal approaches for 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement: do we have a winner? Sex. Med. Rev. 6, 631–639 (2018).
pubmed: 29730314
doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.03.007
Trost, L. W., Boonjindasup, A. G. & Hellstrom, W. J. Comparison of infrapubic versus transscrotal approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institution report. Int. J. Impot. Res. 27, 86–89 (2015).
pubmed: 25339138
doi: 10.1038/ijir.2014.35
Henry, G. D. et al. Surgical techniques in penoscrotal implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis: a guide to increasing patient satisfaction and surgeon ease. Sex. Med. Rev. 3, 36–47 (2015).
pubmed: 27784571
doi: 10.1002/smrj.39
Wallen, J. J. et al. Biochemical comparison of inflatable penile implants: a cadaveric pilot study. J. Sex. Med 15, 1034–1040 (2018).
pubmed: 29960627
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.05.014
Levine, L. A. & Hoeh, M. P. Review of penile prosthetic reservoir: complications and presentation of a modified reservoir placement technique. J. Sex. Med 9, 2759–2769 (2012).
pubmed: 22672516
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02807.x
Perito, P. E. & Wilson, S. K. Traditional (retroperitoneal) and abdominal wall (ectopic) reservoir placement. J. Sex. Med. 8, 656–659 (2011).
pubmed: 21711485
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02202.x
Karpman, E. et al. Reservoir alternate surgical implantation technique: preliminary outcomes of initial PROPPER study of low profile or spherical reservoir implantation in submuscular location or traditional prevesical space. J. Urol. 193, 239–244 (2015).
pubmed: 25066871
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.082
Karpman, E., Sadeghi-Nejad, H., Henry, G., Khera, M. & Morey, A. F. Current opinions on alternative reservoir placement for inflatable penile prosthesis among members of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America. J. Sex. Med. 10, 2115–2120 (2013).
pubmed: 23679798
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12203
Trost, L., Patil, M. & Kramer, A. Critical appraisal and review of management strategies for severe fibrosis during penile implant surgery. J. Sex. Med. 12, 439–447 (2015).
pubmed: 26565574
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12985
Wilson, S. K., Delk, J. R., Mulcahy, J. J., Cleves, M. & Salem, E. A. Upsizing of inflatable penile implant cylinders in patients with corporal fibrosis. J. Sex. Med. 3, 736–742 (2006).
pubmed: 16839331
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00263.x
Zacharakis, E. et al. Penile prosthesis insertion in patients with refractory ischaemic priapism: early vs delayed implantation. BJU Int. 114, 576–581 (2014).
pubmed: 25383397
doi: 10.1111/bju.12686
Ralph, D. J. et al. The immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis for acute ischaemic priapism. Eur. Urol. 56, 1033–1038 (2009).
pubmed: 18930579
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.044
Durazi, M. H. & Jalal, A. A. Penile prosthesis implantation for treatment of postpriapism erectile dysfunction. Urol. J. 5, 115–119 (2008).
pubmed: 18592465
Sedigh, O. et al. Early insertion of inflatable prosthesis for intractable ischemic priapism: our experience and review of the literature. Int. J. Impot. Res 23, 158–164 (2011).
pubmed: 21654814
doi: 10.1038/ijir.2011.23
Chung, E., Wang, R., Ralph, D., Levine, L. & Brock, G. A worldwide survey on Peyronie’s disease surgical practice patterns among surgeons. J. Sex. Med 15, 568–575 (2018).
pubmed: 29550462
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.01.025
Chung, E., Solomon, M., De Young, L. & Brock, G. B. Comparison between AMS 700 CX and Coloplast Titan inflatable penile prosthesis for Peyronie’s disease treatment and remodelling: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. J. Sex. Med. 10, 2855–2860 (2013).
pubmed: 23210973
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12009
Lao M., Graydon R. J., Bieniek J. M. Salvage penile prosthetic surgery utilizing temporary malleable implants. Trans. Androl. Urol. 6, S806–S812 (2017).
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.05.12
Brant, M. D., Ludlow, J. K. & Mulcahy, J. J. Prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of infected penile prostheses. J. Urol. 155, 155–157 (1996).
pubmed: 7490819
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66580-7
Chung, E. Penile reconstructive surgery in Peyronie’s disease: challenges in restoring normal penis size, shape and function. World J. Mens. Health 36, e10–e17 (2018).
doi: 10.5534/wjmh.170053
Sultana, A., Grice, P., Vukina, J., Pearce, I. & Modgil, V. Indications and characteristics of penile traction and vacuum erection devices. Nat. Rev. Urol. 19, 84–100 (2022).
pubmed: 34764451
doi: 10.1038/s41585-021-00532-7
Sansalone, S. et al. Simultaneous penile lengthening and penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie’s disease, refractory erectile dysfunction, and severe penile shortening. J. Sex. Med. 9, 316–321 (2012).
pubmed: 22023552
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02509.x
Rolle, L. et al. A new, innovative, lengthening surgical procedure for Peyronie’s disease by penile prosthesis implantation with double dorsal-ventral patch graft: the “sliding technique. J. Sex. Med. 9, 2389–2395 (2012).
pubmed: 22429331
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02675.x
Egydio, P. H., Kuehhas, F. E. & Valenzuela, R. J. Modified sliding technique (MoST) for penile lengthening with insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis. J. Sex. Med. 12, 1100–1104 (2015).
pubmed: 25974234
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12911
Egydio, P. H. & Kuehhas, F. E. The multiple-slit technique (MUST) for penile length and girth restoration. J. Sex. Med. 15, 261–269 (2018).
pubmed: 29275049
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.11.223
Tran, H., Goldfarb, R., Ackerman, A. & Valenzuela, R. J. Penile lengthening, girth, and size preservation at the time of penile prosthesis insertion. Sex. Med. Rev. 5, 403–412 (2017).
pubmed: 28238678
doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.11.005
Austoni, E., Guarneri, A. & Cazzaniga, A. A new technique for augmentation phalloplasty: albugineal surgery with bilateral saphenous grafts — three years of experience. Eur. Urol. 42, 245–253 (2002). discussion 252–253.
pubmed: 12234509
doi: 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00264-6
Elist, J. J. et al. A single-surgeon, retrospective, and preliminary evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the penuma silicone sleeve implant for elective cosmetic correction of the flaccid penis. J. Sex. Med. 15, 1216–1223 (2018).
pubmed: 30145095
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.07.006
Rolle, L. et al. Surgical implantation of artificial urinary device and penile prosthesis through trans-scrotal incision for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction: synchronous or delayed procedure? Urology 80, 1046–1050 (2012).
pubmed: 22999451
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.08.003
Gorbatiy, V., Westney, O. L., Romero, C. & Wang, R. Outcomes of simultaneous placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis and a male urethral sling through a single perineal incision. J. Sex. Med. 7, 832–838 (2010).
pubmed: 19796057
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01506.x
Patel, N. et al. A contemporary analysis of dual inflatable penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter outcomes. J. Urol. 201, 141–146 (2019).
pubmed: 30059687
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.046
Chung, E. Artificial urinary sphincter surgery in the special populations: neurological, revision, concurrent penile prosthesis and female stress urinary incontinence groups. Asian J. Androl. 22, 45–50 (2020).
pubmed: 31793444
doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_128_19
Rooker, S. A. et al. The rise of the neophallus: a systematic review of penile prosthetic outcomes and complications in gender-affirming surgery. J. Sex. Med 16, 661–672 (2019).
pubmed: 30956105
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.03.009
Kang, A., Aizen, J. M., Cohen, A. J., Bales, G. T. & Pariser, J. J. Techniques and considerations of prosthetic surgery after phalloplasty in the transgender male. Transl. Androl. Urol. 8, 273–282 (2019).
pubmed: 31380234
pmcid: 6626310
doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.06.02
Neuville, P. et al. First outcomes of the ZSI 475 FtM, a specific prosthesis designed for phalloplasty. J. Sex. Med. 16, 316–322 (2019).
pubmed: 30638882
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.11.013
Dhabuwala, C., Sheth, S. & Zamzow, B. Infection rates of rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan Coloplast penile implants. Comparison with Inhibizone-impregnated AMS penile implants. J. Sex. Med. 8, 315–320 (2011).
pubmed: 20946163
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02068.x
Wosnitzer, M. S. & Greenfield, J. M. Antibiotic patterns with inflatable penile prosthesis insertion. J. Sex. Med. 8, 1521–1528 (2011).
pubmed: 21521487
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02207.x
Abouassaly, R., Angermeier, K. W. & Montague, D. K. Risk of infection with an antibiotic coated penile prosthesis at device replacement for mechanical failure. J. Urol. 176, 2471–2473 (2006).
pubmed: 17085132
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.010
Song, W. D. et al. Penile prosthesis implant in Chinese patients with severe erectile dysfunction: 10-year experience. Asian J. Androl. 15, 658–661 (2013).
pubmed: 23872664
pmcid: 3881644
doi: 10.1038/aja.2013.78
Dropkin, B. M. et al. Penile prosthesis insertion in the era of antibiotic stewardship are postoperative antibiotics necessary? J. Urol. 203, 611–614 (2020).
pubmed: 31580192
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000578
Hinds, P. R., Wilson, S. K. & Sadeghi-Nejad, H. Dilemmas of inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery: what practices achieve the best outcomes and the lower infection rates? (CME). J. Sex. Med. 9, 2483–2491 (2012).
pubmed: 23046282
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02932.x
Bratzler, D. W. & Houck, P. M., Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the national surgical infection prevention project. Am. J. Surg. 189, 395–404 (2005).
pubmed: 15820449
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.01.015
Reinstatler, L., Shee, K. & Gross, M. S. Pain management in penile prosthetic surgery: a review of the literature. Sex. Med. Rev. 6, 162–169 (2018).
pubmed: 28735683
doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.05.005
Ellis, J. L., Higgins, A. M. & Simhan, J. Pain management strategies in penile implantation. Asian J. Androl. 22, 34–38 (2020).
pubmed: 31464206
doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_91_19
Raynor, M. C., Smith, A., Vyas, S. N., Selph, J. P. & Carson, C. C. Dorsal penile nerve block prior to inflatable penile prosthesis. J. Sex. Med. 9, 2975–2979 (2012).
pubmed: 22642415
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02756.x
Weinberg, A., Pagano, M. & Valenzuela, R. Preoperative local anesthetic block reduces the need for narcotic medications following penile prosthesis surgery. J. Sex. Med. 13, S66–S67 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.02.148
Hsu, G. et al. Outpatient penile implantation with the patient under a novel method of crural block. Int. J. Androl. 151, 147–151 (2004).
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2004.00465.x
Xie, D. et al. Effect of operative local anesthesia on postoperative pain outcomes of inflatable penile prosthesis: prospective comparison of two medications. Int. J. Impot. Res 30, 93–96 (2018).
pubmed: 29795532
doi: 10.1038/s41443-018-0025-7
Chung, E. Local anaesthesia eluting property of Coloplast titan penile prosthesis hydrophilic coating: an in-vitro drug elution profile and a randomized double-blind clinical outcome study. J. Sex. Med. 15, S149 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.04.062
Ellis, J. L. et al. Pain management strategies in contemporary penile implant recipients. Curr. Urol. Rep. 22, 17 (2021).
pubmed: 33534030
doi: 10.1007/s11934-021-01033-1
Tong, C. M. C. et al. Novel multi-modal analgesia protocol significantly decreases opioid requirements in inflatable penile prosthesis patients. J. Sex. Med. 15, 1187–1194 (2018).
pubmed: 30017719
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.05.017
O’Rourke, T. K., Erbella, A., Zang, Y. & Wosnitzer, M. S. Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction. Transl. Androl. Urol. 6, S832–S848 (2017).
pubmed: 29238663
pmcid: 5715191
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.06.07
Chung, E. et al. Penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment for male erectile dysfunction: clinical outcomes and lessons learnt after 955 procedures. World J. Urol. 31, 591–595 (2013).
pubmed: 22457032
doi: 10.1007/s00345-012-0859-4
Sadeghi-Nejad, H. et al. Multi-institutional outcome study on the efficacy of closed-suction drainage of the scrotum in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Int. J. Impot. Res. 17, 535–538 (2005).
pubmed: 15988544
doi: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3901354