-
International Journal of Impotence... Feb 2024Surgical treatments for ischemic priapism (IP) include shunts or penile implants. Non-ischemic priapism (NIP) is usually the result of penile/perineal trauma causing an... (Review)
Review
Surgical treatments for ischemic priapism (IP) include shunts or penile implants. Non-ischemic priapism (NIP) is usually the result of penile/perineal trauma causing an arterial fistula and embolisation may be required. We conducted a systematic review on behalf of the EAU Sexual and Reproductive health Guidelines panel to analyse the available evidence on efficacy and safety of surgical modalities for IP and NIP. Outcomes were priapism resolution, sexual function and adverse events following surgery. Overall, 63 studies (n = 923) met inclusion criteria up to September 2021. For IP (n = 702), surgery comprised distal (n = 274), proximal shunts (n = 209) and penile prostheses (n = 194). Resolution occurred in 18.7-100% for distal, 5.7-100% for proximal shunts and 100% for penile prostheses. Potency rate was 20-100% for distal, 11.1-77.2% for proximal shunts, and 26.3-100% for penile prostheses, respectively. Patient satisfaction was 60-100% following penile prostheses implantation. Complications were 0-42.5% for shunts and 0-13.6% for IPP. For NIP (n = 221), embolisation success was 85.7-100% and potency 80-100%. The majority of studies were retrospective cohort studies. Risk of bias was high. Overall, surgical shunts have acceptable success rates in IP. Proximal/venous shunts should be abandoned due to morbidity/ED rates. In IP > 48 h, best outcomes are seen with penile prostheses implantation. Embolisation is the mainstay technique for NIP with high resolution rates and adequate erectile function.
Topics: Male; Humans; Priapism; Retrospective Studies; Reproductive Health; Penis; Penile Erection; Penile Prosthesis
PubMed: 36151318
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-022-00604-1 -
The French Journal of Urology Jun 2024The salvage procedure for infected penile implants (IPs) has been a subject of interest since its inception in the late 1980s, yet its widespread adoption remains... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The salvage procedure for infected penile implants (IPs) has been a subject of interest since its inception in the late 1980s, yet its widespread adoption remains limited. The aim of this study was to realize a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive analysis of salvage techniques for IPs and assess their efficacy, specifically focusing on functional success.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed, employing Mesh terms related to penile prosthesis, penile implant, infection, and salvage procedures. Articles in French or English were considered for the final analysis, with exclusion of literature reviews.
RESULTS
Fifteen articles detailing various salvage techniques for IPs were identified. Mulcahy's initial technique was described in 1996, and consisted of complete removal of infected components, extensive lavage, and subsequent replacement with a similar implant. Success rates ranged from 80% to 100%, with emerging trends favoring the use of malleable implants during salvage. Unfortunately, functional data remained limited. When salvage penile prosthesis placement involved a malleable prosthesis, between 20% and 33% of patients underwent conversion to hydraulic prosthesis.
CONCLUSION
The salvage procedure for infected penile implants is a reliable method, with success rates surpassing 80%. The need for comparative studies assessing the type of implant used during salvage is required to tailor conservative management strategies for optimal patient outcomes. Finally, few data have been published regarding subsequent conversions from malleable penile implants to hydraulic penile implants after salvage.
Topics: Humans; Male; Salvage Therapy; Penile Prosthesis; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Treatment Outcome; Penile Implantation; Device Removal
PubMed: 38697265
DOI: 10.1016/j.fjurol.2024.102641 -
Sexual Medicine Reviews Jun 2024
Correction to: A systematic review comparing different approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis revision: partial-component exchange, complete-component exchange, or reservoir "drain and retain".
PubMed: 38909274
DOI: 10.1093/sxmrev/qeae047