Which patient may benefit the most from penile prosthesis implantation?
Peyronie's disease
erectile dysfunction
penile prosthesis implantation
questionnaire
sexual satisfaction
Journal
Andrology
ISSN: 2047-2927
Titre abrégé: Andrology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101585129
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
revised:
29
08
2022
received:
18
08
2022
accepted:
06
09
2022
pubmed:
12
9
2022
medline:
19
10
2022
entrez:
11
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Penile prosthesis implantation has been associated with overall good functional outcomes. Of relevance, some patients reported higher level of satisfaction and quality of life. We investigated the profile of the patients who may benefit the most from penile prosthesis implantation. Data from a national multi-institutional registry of penile prostheses including patients treated from 2014 to 2017 in Italy (Italian Nationwide Systematic Inventarization of Surgical Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction) were analyzed. All data have been prospectively recorded by 45 surgeons on a dedicated website (www.registro.andrologiaitaliana.it) and revised by a single data manager. Patients' baseline characteristics were recorded. In order to simultaneously evaluate perceived penile prosthesis function and quality of life, all patients were re-assessed at 1-year follow-up using the validated questionnaire Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis. High quality of life after surgery was defined as a score higher than the 75th percentile in each of the subdomains of the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis questionnaire. Logistic regression analysis tested the association between clinical characteristics and high quality of life after penile prosthesis implantation. Follow-up data were available for 285 patients (median age 60 years; interquartile range: 56-67) who underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Erectile dysfunction etiology was organic in 40% (114), pelvic surgery/radiotherapy in 39% (111), and Peyronie's disease in 21% (60) of the cases. Patients showed good overall Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis scores at 1-year follow-up for functional (22/25), personal (13/15), relational (17/20), and social (13/15) domains. Overall, 27.0% (77) of patients achieved scores consistent with the high quality of life definition. These patients did not differ in terms of median age (60 vs. 62), type of prosthesis (inflatable penile prostheses: 95% in both of the cases), and post-operative complications (10% vs. 14%) than those with lower quality of life score (all p > 0.1). At logistic regression analysis, erectile dysfunction etiology was the only factor independently associated with high quality of life at 1 year after surgery (p = 0.02). Patients treated for Peyronie's disease (odds ratio: 2.62; p = 0.01; 95% confidence interval: 1.20-5.74) were more likely to report better outcomes after accounting for age, post-operative complications, and surgical volume. Penile prosthesis implantation is associated with an overall good quality of life. The subset of patients affected by erectile dysfunction secondary to Peyronie's disease seemed to benefit the most from penile prosthesis implantation in terms of functional outcomes, relationship with their partners and the outside world, and perceived self-image. The systematic use of validated questionnaires specifically addressed at evaluating quality of life and satisfaction after penile prosthesis implantation should be further implemented in future studies to better define the predictors of optimal satisfaction after penile prosthesis implantation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Penile prosthesis implantation has been associated with overall good functional outcomes. Of relevance, some patients reported higher level of satisfaction and quality of life.
AIM
We investigated the profile of the patients who may benefit the most from penile prosthesis implantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data from a national multi-institutional registry of penile prostheses including patients treated from 2014 to 2017 in Italy (Italian Nationwide Systematic Inventarization of Surgical Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction) were analyzed. All data have been prospectively recorded by 45 surgeons on a dedicated website (www.registro.andrologiaitaliana.it) and revised by a single data manager. Patients' baseline characteristics were recorded. In order to simultaneously evaluate perceived penile prosthesis function and quality of life, all patients were re-assessed at 1-year follow-up using the validated questionnaire Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis. High quality of life after surgery was defined as a score higher than the 75th percentile in each of the subdomains of the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis questionnaire. Logistic regression analysis tested the association between clinical characteristics and high quality of life after penile prosthesis implantation.
RESULTS
Follow-up data were available for 285 patients (median age 60 years; interquartile range: 56-67) who underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Erectile dysfunction etiology was organic in 40% (114), pelvic surgery/radiotherapy in 39% (111), and Peyronie's disease in 21% (60) of the cases. Patients showed good overall Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis scores at 1-year follow-up for functional (22/25), personal (13/15), relational (17/20), and social (13/15) domains. Overall, 27.0% (77) of patients achieved scores consistent with the high quality of life definition. These patients did not differ in terms of median age (60 vs. 62), type of prosthesis (inflatable penile prostheses: 95% in both of the cases), and post-operative complications (10% vs. 14%) than those with lower quality of life score (all p > 0.1). At logistic regression analysis, erectile dysfunction etiology was the only factor independently associated with high quality of life at 1 year after surgery (p = 0.02). Patients treated for Peyronie's disease (odds ratio: 2.62; p = 0.01; 95% confidence interval: 1.20-5.74) were more likely to report better outcomes after accounting for age, post-operative complications, and surgical volume.
CONCLUSION
Penile prosthesis implantation is associated with an overall good quality of life. The subset of patients affected by erectile dysfunction secondary to Peyronie's disease seemed to benefit the most from penile prosthesis implantation in terms of functional outcomes, relationship with their partners and the outside world, and perceived self-image. The systematic use of validated questionnaires specifically addressed at evaluating quality of life and satisfaction after penile prosthesis implantation should be further implemented in future studies to better define the predictors of optimal satisfaction after penile prosthesis implantation.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1567-1574Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022 American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology.
Références
Hatzimouratidis K, Salonia A, Adaikan G, et al. Pharmacotherapy for erectile dysfunction: recommendations from the fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2015). J Sex Med. 2016;13(4):465-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.016
Levine LA, Becher EF, Bella AJ, et al. Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the international consultation on sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2016;13(4):489-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.017
Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2,384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007;4(4 Pt 1): 1074-1079. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00540.x
Trost L, Wanzek P, Bailey G. A practical overview of considerations for penile prosthesis placement. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13(1):33-46. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2015.270
Bettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, et al. Patient and partner satisfaction after AMS inflatable penile prosthesis implant. J Sex Med. 2010;7(1 Pt 1): 304-309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01499.x
Chung E. Penile prosthesis implant: scientific advances and technological innovations over the last four decades. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(1):37-45. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2016.12.06
Bayrak O, Erturhan S, Seckiner I, Ozturk M, Sen H, Erbagci A. Comparison of the patient's satisfaction underwent penile prosthesis; Malleable versus Ambicor: single center experience. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020;92(1):25-29. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.1.25
Chierigo F, Capogrosso P, Dehò F, et al. Long-term follow-up after penile prosthesis implantation-survival and quality of life outcomes. J Sex Med. 2019;16(11):1827-1833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.08.001
Akakpo W, Pineda MA, Burnett AL. Critical analysis of satisfaction assessment after penile prosthesis surgery. Sex Med Rev. 2017;5(2):244-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.01.001
Habous M, Tal R, Tealab A, et al. Predictors of satisfaction in men after penile implant surgery. J Sex Med. 2018;15(8):1180-1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.05.011
Capogrosso P, Pescatori E, Caraceni E, et al. Satisfaction rate at 1-year follow-up in patients treated with penile implants: data from the multicentre prospective registry INSIST-ED. BJU Int. 2019;123(2):360-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14462
Caraceni E, Utizi L. A questionnaire for the evaluation of quality of life after penile prosthesis implant: quality of life and sexuality with penile prosthesis (QoLSPP): to what extent does the implant affect the patient's life? J Sex Med. 2014;11(4):1005-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12453
Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Biyani CS, Bjerggaard Jensen J, Rouprêt M, Truss M. Validation of the Clavien-Dindo grading system in urology by the European Association of Urology Guidelines ad hoc panel. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(4):608-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.02.014
Ji YS, Ko YH, Song PH, Moon KH. Long-term survival and patient satisfaction with inflatable penile prosthesis for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Korean J Urol. 2015;56(6):461-465. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.6.461
Kane RL, Maciejewski M, Finch M. The relationship of patient satisfaction with care and clinical outcomes. Med Care. 1997;35(7):714-730. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199707000-00005
Bernal RM, Henry GD. Contemporary patient satisfaction rates for three-piece inflatable penile prostheses. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:707321. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/707321
Brinkman MJ, Henry GD, Wilson SK, et al. A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses for satisfaction. J Urol. 2005;174(1):253-257. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000161608.21337.8d
Montorsi F, Rigatti P, Carmignani G, et al. AMS three-piece inflatable implants for erectile dysfunction: a long-term multi-institutional study in 200 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2000;37(1):50-55. https://doi.org/10.1159/000020099
Pillay B, Moon D, Love C, et al. Quality of life, psychological functioning, and treatment satisfaction of men who have undergone penile prosthesis surgery following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2017;14(12):1612-1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.10.001
Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1999;53(4):793-799. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00582-2
Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A. The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1997;49(6):822-830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0
Natali A, Olianas R, Fisch M. Penile implantation in Europe: successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany. J Sex Med. 2008;5(6):1503-1512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00819.x
Vitarelli A, Divenuto L, Fortunato F, et al. Long term patient satisfaction and quality of life with AMS700CX inflatable penile prosthesis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2013;85(3):133-137. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2013.3.133
Akin-Olugbade O, Parker M, Guhring P, Mulhall J. Determinants of patient satisfaction following penile prosthesis surgery. J Sex Med. 2006;3(4):743-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00278.x
Schifano N, Cakir OO, Castiglione F, Montorsi F, Garaffa G. Multidisciplinary approach and management of patients who seek medical advice for penile size concerns: a narrative review. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(5):434-451. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00444-5
Levine LA, Benson J, Hoover C. Inflatable penile prosthesis placement in men with Peyronie's disease and drug-resistant erectile dysfunction: a single-center study. J Sex Med. 2010;7(11):3775-3783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01971.x
Gamidov S, Shatylko T, Gasanov N, Scherbakov D, Li K, Sukhikh G. Long-term outcomes of surgery for Peyronie's disease: focus on patient satisfaction. Int J Impot Res. 2021;33(3):332-338. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0297-6
Khera M, Bella A, Karpman E, et al. Penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie's disease: results of the PROPPER study demonstrates a decrease in patient-reported depression. J Sex Med. 2018;15(5):786-788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.02.024
Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int. 2006;97(1):129-133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05907.x
Eardley I. Malleable vs inflatable implant? Which one to choose. J Sex Med. 2017;14(8):975-976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.05.015