Complication rates in concurrent inflatable penile prosthesis and incontinence surgery: Comparing the penoscrotal versus perineal incision approach.
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:
10 Nov 2022
10 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
11
07
2022
accepted:
27
09
2022
revised:
25
09
2022
entrez:
10
11
2022
pubmed:
11
11
2022
medline:
11
11
2022
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The main objective of this study was to assess the IPP complication rates of patients undergoing placement via perineal incision versus more traditional penoscrotal approach in synchronous dual implantation. We identified 38 patients who underwent dual implantations of an IPP and AUS or urethral sling from 2011 to 2021 at a single tertiary center, 24 via perineal and 14 via penoscrotal incision. All IPP implants were done by a single surgeon. IPP postoperative complications were captured using the Clavien-Dindo classification at three separate time points, < 30 days, 30 days - 6 months, and > 6 months. The perineal group had two complications, IPP explantation due to rectourethral fistula (Grade III, > 6 months), and IPP explantation due to chronic genital pain (Grade III, > 6 months). The penoscrotal group had three complications, post-operative urinary retention requiring catheterization (Grade I, < 30 days), incision site infection (Grade I, < 30 days), and IPP explantation due to infection (Grade III, 30 days to < 6 months). There was no statistically significant difference in rate of patients with IPP complications between the two groups (p = 0.546) or in rate of IPP device malfunction (p = 0.264). These preliminary findings suggest that the single perineal incision is a viable surgical approach in synchronous dual implantation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36357570
doi: 10.1038/s41443-022-00628-7
pii: 10.1038/s41443-022-00628-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Dick B, Tsambarlis P, Reddy A, Hellstrom WJ. An update on: Long-term outcomes of penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019;16:281–6.
doi: 10.1080/17434440.2019.1598259
pubmed: 30898042
Trost LW, Boonjindasup AG, Hellstrom WJG. Comparison of infrapubic versus transcrotal approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institution report. Int J Impot Res. 2015;27:86–9.
doi: 10.1038/ijir.2014.35
pubmed: 25339138
Houlihan MD, Köhler TS, Wilson SK, Hatzichristodoulou G. Penoscrotal approach for IPP: Still up-to-date after more than 40 years? Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:2–9.
doi: 10.1038/s41443-019-0206-z
pubmed: 31582821
Krzastek SC, Smith R. An update on the best approaches to prevent complications in penile prosthesis recipients. Ther Adv Urol. 2019;11:1756287218818076.
doi: 10.1177/1756287218818076
pubmed: 30671142
pmcid: 6329024
Garber BB, Marcus SM. Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection? Urology. 1998;52:291–3.
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00186-1
pubmed: 9697797
Kabalin JN, Kessler R. Infectious complications of penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol. 1988;139:953–5.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)42727-3
pubmed: 3361672
Palmisano F, Boeri L, Cristini C, Antonini G, Spinelli MG, Franco G, et al. Comparison of Infrapubic vs Penoscrotal Approaches for 3-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement: Do We Have a Winner? Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:631–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.03.007
pubmed: 29730314
Hebert KJ, Kohler TS. Penile prosthesis infection: Myths and realities. World J Men’s Health. 2019;37:276–87.
doi: 10.5534/wjmh.180123
Hartman RP, Kawashima A, Takahashi N, LeRoy AJ, King BF. Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP): Diagnosis of complications. Abdom Radio (NY). 2016;41:1187–96.
doi: 10.1007/s00261-016-0686-y
Dadhich P, Hockenberry M, Kirby EW, Lipshultz L. Penile prosthesis in the management of erectile dysfunction following cancer therapy. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:S883–9.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.07.05
pubmed: 29238667
pmcid: 5715185
Jordan S, Hendry J, Al-Ansari A, Talib R, Yassin A, Aboumarzouk OM. Synchronous placement of penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter: a systematic review with cumulative analysis. J Men’s Health. 2021;17:30–6.
Baird BA, Parikh K, Broderick G. Penile implant infection factors: a contemporary narrative review of literature. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10:3873–84.
doi: 10.21037/tau-21-568
pubmed: 34804829
pmcid: 8575569
Mancini JG, Kizer WS, Jones LA, Mora RV, Morey AF. Patient satisfaction after dual implantation of inflatable penile and artificial urinary sphincter prostheses. Urology 2008;71:893–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.018
pubmed: 18374398
Mykoniatis I, Albersen M, Andrianne R, Sokolakis I, Hatzichristodoulou G, Sempels M, et al. Synchronous surgery for the combined treatment of post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence: a lucrative evolution or an unnecessary complexity? Int J Impot Res. 2021;33:6–15.
doi: 10.1038/s41443-020-0253-5
pubmed: 32203423
Gorbatiy V, Westney OL, 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. 2010;7:832–8.
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01506.x
pubmed: 19796057
Kendirci M, Gupta S, Shaw K, Morey A, Jones L, Hakim L, et al. Synchronous prosthetic implantation through a transscrotal incision: an outcome analysis. J Urol. 2006;175:2218–22.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00345-4
pubmed: 16697843
Martínez-Salamanca JI, Espinós EL, Moncada I, Portillo LD, Carballido J. Management of end-stage erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy by simultaneous dual implantation using a single trans-scrotal incision: surgical technique and outcomes. Asian J Androl. 2015;17:792–6.
pubmed: 25657083
pmcid: 4577592
Kumar R, Nehra A. Dual implantation of penile and sphincter implants in the post-prostatectomy patient. Curr Urol Rep. 2007;8:477–81.
doi: 10.1007/s11934-007-0052-2
pubmed: 18042328
Boysen WR, Cohen AJ, Kuchta K, Park S, Milose J. Combined placement of artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis does not increase risk of perioperative complications or impact long-term device survival. Urology 2019;124:264–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.10.033
pubmed: 30786981
Zafirakis H, Wang R, Westney OL. Combination therapy for male erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. Asian J Androl. 2008;10:149–54.
doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7262.2008.00364.x
pubmed: 18087654
Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, Levine F, Burnett AL, McVary K, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1999;53:793–9.
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00582-2
pubmed: 10197859
Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:203–13.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162
pubmed: 22808955
pmcid: 3429335
Bratu O, Oprea I, Marcu D, Spinu D, Niculae A, Geavlete B, et al. Erectile dysfunction post-radical prostatectomy - a challenge for both patient and physician. J Med Life. 2017;10:13–18.
pubmed: 28255370
pmcid: 5304365
Saleh A, Abboudi H, Ghazal-Aswad M, Mayer EK, Vale JA. Management of erectile dysfunction post-radical prostatectomy. Res Rep. Urol. 2015;7:19–33.
pubmed: 25750901
pmcid: 4348059
Sellers CL, Morey AF, Jones LA. Cost and time benefits of dual implantation of inflatable penile and artificial urinary sphincter prosthetics by single incision. Urology. 2005;65:852–3.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.11.017
pubmed: 15882709
Rhee EY. Technique for concomitant implantation of the penile prosthesis with the male sling. J Urol. 2005;173:925–7.
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000154023.93188.9c
pubmed: 15711332
Wilson S, Delk J 2nd, Henry GD, Siegel AL. New surgical technique for sphincter urinary control system using upper transverse scrotal incision. J Urol. 2003;169:261–4.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64082-7
pubmed: 12478150