New findings regarding the influence of assistants on surgical outcomes in penile prosthesis implantation.
Journal
International journal of impotence research
ISSN: 1476-5489
Titre abrégé: Int J Impot Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9007383
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
20
06
2022
accepted:
22
09
2022
revised:
20
09
2022
pubmed:
9
10
2022
medline:
9
10
2022
entrez:
8
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Penile prosthesis implantation is the definitive treatment for refractory erectile dysfunction, yet exposure to this procedure during training of urology residents is often limited. To assess the effects of resident participation in penile prosthesis surgery, we compared surgical outcomes in a retrospective case series of 253 penile prosthesis surgeries by a single surgeon at the same institution between 2017 and 2020 with the assistance of either a registered nurse first assistant (RNFA) or a resident. Pertinent patient characteristics and surgical complications including device complications, surgical site infection, postoperative bleeding, iatrogenic injury, cardiovascular events, pulmonary events, and urinary retention were documented. Measured outcomes included operative time, Emergency Room (ER) visits, unplanned postoperative visits, pain medication refills, and surgical complications. Compared to RFNAs, resident-assisted penile prosthesis surgery was associated with significant increase in mean operative time (71.4 min vs. 87.9 min, p < 0.01) and postoperative ER visits (3.0% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.03) but not surgical complications (19.7% vs. 20.8%, OR 1.03, 95% CI [0.46 -2.30]) or other measured outcomes. Compared to a dedicated RFNA, Resident assistance increased operative time by approximately 17 min, but did not increase post-operative surgical complications, supporting the notion that resident assistance in these procedures may be appropriate as an integral part of training.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36209303
doi: 10.1038/s41443-022-00624-x
pii: 10.1038/s41443-022-00624-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
736-740Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Laumann EO, Paik A, Rosen RC. Sexual dysfunction in the United States: prevalence and predictors. JAMA. 1999;281:537–44.
doi: 10.1001/jama.281.6.537
pubmed: 10022110
Lee DJ, Najari BB, Davison WL, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Zhao F, Paduch DA, et al. Trends in the utilization of penile prostheses in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in the United States. J Sex Med. 2015;12:1638–45.
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12921
pubmed: 26096365
Mulhall JP, Ahmed A, Branch J, Parker M. Serial assessment of efficacy and satisfaction profiles following penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol. 2003;169:1429–33.
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000056047.74268.9c
pubmed: 12629377
Saavedra-Belaunde JA, Clavell-Hernandez J, Wang R. Epidemiology regarding penile prosthetic surgery. Asian J Androl. 2020;22:2–7.
doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_124_19
pubmed: 31793443
Manfredi C, Fortier É, Faix A, Martínez-Salamanca JI. Penile implant surgery satisfaction assessment. J Sex Med. 2021;18:868–74.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.03.007
pubmed: 33903044
Kovac JR. Centers of excellence for penile prosthetics are a novel concept that will likely prove difficult to implement. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:S898–9.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.11.21
pubmed: 29239399
pmcid: 5715184
Oberlin DT, Matulewicz RS, Bachrach L, Hofer MD, Brannigan RE, Flury SC. National practice patterns of treatment of erectile dysfunction with penile prosthesis implantation. J Urol. 2015;193:2040–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.11.095
pubmed: 25457477
Damadi A, Davis AT, Saxe A, Apelgren K. ACGME duty-hour restrictions decrease resident operative volume: a 5-year comparison at an ACGME-accredited university general surgery residency. J Surg Educ. 2007;64:256–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2007.07.008
pubmed: 17961881
McAbee KE, Pearlman AM, Terlecki RP. Infection following penile prosthesis placement at an academic training center remains low despite involvement of surgeons-in-training. Investig Clin Urol. 2018;59:342.
doi: 10.4111/icu.2018.59.5.342
pubmed: 30182080
pmcid: 6121020
Mahan ME, Parker DM, Fluck M, Gabrielsen JD, Petrick AT, Horsley RD. First assistant impact on early morbidity and mortality in bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15:1541–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2019.06.025
pubmed: 31399311
Yuce TK, Holmstrom A, Soper NJ, Nagle AP, Hungness ES, Merkow RP, et al. Complications and readmissions associated with first assistant training level following elective bariatric surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25:1948–54.
doi: 10.1007/s11605-020-04787-0
pubmed: 32930915
Archie JP. Influence of the first assistant on abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Tex Heart Inst J. 1992;19:4–8.
pubmed: 15227463
pmcid: 325010
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
pubmed: 15273542
pmcid: 1360123
Matulewicz RS, Pilecki M, Rambachan A, Kim JYS, Kundu SD. Impact of resident involvement on urological surgery outcomes: an analysis of 40,000 patients from the ACS NSQIP database. J Urol. 2014;192:885–90.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.096
pubmed: 24704012
Privé B, Kortleve M, van Basten JP. Evaluating the impact of resident involvement during the laparoscopic nephrectomy. Cent European J Urol. 2019;72. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2019.0021 .
McMillan DT, Viera AJ, Matthews J, Raynor MC, Woods ME, Pruthi RS, et al. Resident involvement and experience do not affect perioperative complications following robotic prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2015;33:793–9.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1356-8
pubmed: 24985554
Baber J, Staff I, McLaughlin T, Tortora J, Champagne A, Gangakhedkar A, et al. Impact of urology resident involvement on intraoperative, long-term oncologic and functional outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2019;132:43–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.05.040
pubmed: 31228477
Ruhotina N, Dagenais J, Gandaglia G, Sood A, Abdollah F, Chang SL, et al. The impact of resident involvement in minimally-invasive urologic oncology procedures. CUAJ. 2014;8:334.
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2170
pubmed: 25408800
pmcid: 4216291
Meyer CP, Hanske J, Friedlander DF, Schmid M, Dahlem R, Trinh VQ, et al. The impact of resident involvement in male one-stage anterior urethroplasties. Urology. 2015;85:937–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.01.010
pubmed: 25817121
Caras RJ, Lustik MB, Kern SQ, Sterbis JR, McMann LP. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy demonstrates less morbidity than open radical prostatectomy: an analysis of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database with a focus on surgical trainee involvement. J Endourol. 2014;28:298–305.
doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0475
pubmed: 24164643
Allard CB, Meyer CP, Gandaglia G, Chang SL, Chun FKH, Gelpi-Hammerschmidt F, et al. The effect of resident involvement on perioperative outcomes in transurethral urologic surgeries. J Surg Educ. 2015;72:1018–25.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.04.012
pubmed: 26003818
Lacy JM, Walker J, Gupta S, Davenport DL, Preston DM. Risk factors for removal or revision of penile prostheses in the veteran population. Urology. 2016;98:189–94.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.06.039
pubmed: 27375071
Miller JA, Bennett NE. Comparing risk factors for adverse outcomes in virgin inflatable penile prosthesis implantations and revisions: a retrospective cohort study. Sex Med. 2020;8:388–95.
doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2020.05.004
pubmed: 32571545
pmcid: 7471061
Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Harsch MR. Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of followup. J Urol. 2011;185:614–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.094
pubmed: 21168870
Mulcahy JJ, Carson CC. Long-term infection rates in diabetic patients implanted with antibiotic-impregnated versus nonimpregnated inflatable penile prostheses: 7-year outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;60:167–72.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.046
pubmed: 21316145