-
European Urology Focus May 2022Penile prosthesis is a durable and effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). Even as other treatment options for ED have been brought to market, penile... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Penile prosthesis is a durable and effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). Even as other treatment options for ED have been brought to market, penile prosthetic surgery remains a mainstay for urologists treating ED. No systematic study has yet summarized the global trends in penile prosthetic surgery.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review studies of trends in penile prosthetic surgery to determine global movements in implantation rates, malleable versus inflatable prosthetic surgery, inpatient versus outpatient implantation surgery, proportion of men with ED undergoing penile prosthetic surgery, and prosthetic cost.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for studies assessing trends in penile prosthetic surgeries and costs associated with penile prosthetic device and inclusive surgical costs.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Twenty-seven studies were identified during the systematic review, comprising 447,204 penile prosthetic surgeries reported from 1988 to 2019. A trend analysis demonstrates that rates of penile prosthetic surgery declined dramatically in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but have demonstrated modest growth since the mid-2000s. Outpatient inflatable penile prosthetic surgery has strongly trended upward. Costs of penile prosthetic device have matched the rate of inflation, but inclusive surgical cost has radically outpaced inflation. Growth has mainly been seen in the USA, with a more modest global growth.
CONCLUSIONS
Penile prosthesis remains a viable option for the treatment of ED. Trends such as outpatient surgery and inflatable penile prosthesis placement may be driving the recent steady growth of penile prosthetic surgeries, but surging inclusive surgical cost may present a barrier for some patients without insurance coverage.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Penile prostheses continue to be an important treatment for erectile dysfunction. While the volume of penile prosthetic surgeries dropped when phosphidiesterase-5 inhibitors became available, prosthetic surgery is becoming more patient centric, as seen by increases in inflatable prosthetic placement and outpatient surgery.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Implantation; Penile Prosthesis; Penis; Prevalence
PubMed: 34034995
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.05.003 -
Sexual Medicine Reviews Apr 2020Erectile dysfunction is a common problem that may be definitively treated with the implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). The preponderance of available...
INTRODUCTION
Erectile dysfunction is a common problem that may be definitively treated with the implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). The preponderance of available data on IPP surgery derives from institutional studies, most notably from academic centers or large single-surgeon series, where the majority of procedures are performed in a hospital setting. Because insurance companies and health systems look to reduce health care costs, IPP surgery in outpatient freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) is becoming more prevalent.
AIM
To review the utility of surgery in an ASC setting and to explore its role in the modern practice of urology, focusing on IPP implantation.
METHODS
A critical review was performed of the literature on ambulatory surgery, with specific focus on IPP surgery, using the PubMed database. Key search terms and phrases included erectile dysfunction, penile prosthesis, ambulatory surgery, ambulatory surgery center, outpatient surgery.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
The main outcome measure was the use of IPP implantation in an ASC.
RESULTS
In contemporary surgical practice, the implementation of ambulatory surgery in free-standing centers is increasing. The principal benefits include reducing cost and improving efficiency. Studies on the modern use of IPPs support the prospect of implantation in an ambulatory setting, which can achieve similar outcomes to surgeries classically performed in the inpatient hospital setting. Novel approaches to anesthesia, surgical, and nursing care have revolutionized IPP surgery so that it can now be safely and effectively performed in the ambulatory setting.
CONCLUSION
The role of ambulatory IPP implantation has increased, with the majority of cases being performed outside the hospital. Although there will always be a need for hospital-based surgery, such as significant medical comorbidities, more studies demonstrating the safety and feasibility of ambulatory surgery are needed. For those men who would otherwise be candidates for ambulatory surgery but whose insurance mandates hospital-based treatment, such studies proving utility, safety, and reduced cost could inspire policy change and broaden the ambulatory practice of IPP surgery. Segal RL, Siegelbaum MH, Lerner BD, et al. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation in the Ambulatory Setting: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:338-347.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Implantation
PubMed: 31562047
DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.07.006 -
Urologia Internationalis 2022The aim of this study is to review the literature on the use of antifungal prophylaxis in penile prosthesis (PP) surgery and provide a summary on its efficacy as an...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to review the literature on the use of antifungal prophylaxis in penile prosthesis (PP) surgery and provide a summary on its efficacy as an adjunct to current prophylactic regimes in patients undergoing PP surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched up to May 2020. All included studies were analysed and the information extracted included author, title of study, year of publication, type of study, journal of publication, and main findings regarding post PP implantation fungal infections.
RESULTS
Nine relevant studies were included in this review, comprising retrospective single-centre studies and retrospective multicentre studies ranging from 2017 to 2020. Fungal infections were found responsible for 11.1% of all PP infections, with a greater risk in patients with diabetes, obesity, and from warmer climates. Current American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) prophylaxis guidelines do not incorporate the use of antifungals. Trials of antifungal prophylaxis regimes combined with antibiotic prophylaxis have demonstrated a reduction in PP fungal infections.
CONCLUSIONS
Fungal infections represent a significant proportion of implant infections and therefore antifungal prophylaxis is warranted. Future studies comparing the efficacy of traditional antibiotic prophylaxis as set out by AUA/EAU with novel prophylaxis regimes including the addition of an antifungal may provide more definitive guidance on this issue. Until then antifungal prophylaxis in all patients undergoing PP procedures may provide a significant cost-effect benefit.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Humans; Male; Mycoses; Penile Diseases; Penile Prosthesis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35235938
DOI: 10.1159/000522173 -
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Apr 2024Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) is the first validated questionnaire to specifically evaluate the satisfaction of patients undergoing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) is the first validated questionnaire to specifically evaluate the satisfaction of patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation. Our primary aim was to conduct a systematic review and pooled analysis of articles reporting QoLSPP.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A comprehensive bibliographic search on the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in April 2023. Studies were selected if they assessed male subjects (P) undergoing penile prosthesis implantation (I) with or without comparison with other treatments (C), reporting the patient satisfaction according to QoLSPP (O). Prospective and retrospective original studies were included (S). The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the Knoll method. Means and standard deviations (SDs) of QoLSPP scores were included in the pooled analysis. PROSPERO ID: "CRD42023427261."
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 10 studies investigating 1105 patients were included in the systematic review; of these, eight articles describing the outcomes of 693 subjects were eligible for the pooled analysis. Overall serious risk of bias was found in 2/3 of nonrandomized comparative studies (66%), while seven single-arm studies (100%) were classified as having a high risk of bias. Pooled analysis of the QoLSPP-Functional domain revealed an overall effect size (ES) of 4.22 points (95% CI 4.04-4.40; P<0.001). The QoLSPP-Relational pooled score was 4.17 points (95% CI 4.03-4.31; P<0.001). The QoLSPP-Social pooled score corresponded to 4.21 points (95% CI 4.02-4.40; P<0.001). Pooled analysis of the QoLSPP-Personal domain showed an overall ES of 3.97 points (95% CI 3.61-4.32; P<0.001). There was insufficient data to pool QoLSPP total scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation report positive scores in all QoLSPP domains, demonstrating high satisfaction levels. Future studies are needed to improve the evidence on the topic.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Male; Penile Prosthesis; Patient Satisfaction; Sexuality; Penile Implantation
PubMed: 37795696
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.23.05466-6 -
Archivio Italiano Di Urologia,... Jun 2024Erectile dysfunction can cause self-withdrawal and decreased quality of life. Patients who do not respond to pharmacological therapy and other conservative treatments... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Erectile dysfunction can cause self-withdrawal and decreased quality of life. Patients who do not respond to pharmacological therapy and other conservative treatments are urged to undergo penile prosthesis implantation. Malleable penile prosthesis was the first prosthesis developed, but then inflatable penile prosthesis was developed to give a more natural erection. There is no meta-analysis comparing inflatable and malleable penile prostheses in terms of safety and efficacy. This study is conducted to evaluate patient and partner satisfaction, ease of use, mechanical failure, and infection rate in patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation.
METHOD
This meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocols. Five eligible studies were included from Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and SemanticScholar databases.
RESULT
In this study, patient and partner satisfaction are significantly better (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.66-6.93, p = 0.0008) (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.75-3.08, p < 0.00001). Mechanical failure is also significantly higher in inflatable penile prostheses (OR 5.60, 95% CI 2.02-15.53, p = 0.0009). There is no significant difference in terms of ease of use and infection rate in inflatable or malleable penile prostheses.
CONCLUSIONS
This study concluded that inflatable penile prosthesis is better in terms of patient and partner satisfaction, but mechanical failures occur more frequently in this type of prosthesis.
Topics: Humans; Male; Erectile Dysfunction; Penile Prosthesis; Patient Satisfaction; Prosthesis Design; Penile Implantation; Treatment Outcome; Quality of Life; Prosthesis Failure
PubMed: 38934528
DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2024.12353 -
Therapeutic Advances in Urology 2023Devices such as inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) can be used to achieve erectile rigidity after phalloplasty in assigned female at birth (AFAB) individuals. The... (Review)
Review
Insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis in the neophallus of assigned female at birth individuals: a systematic review of surgical techniques, complications and outcomes.
Devices such as inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) can be used to achieve erectile rigidity after phalloplasty in assigned female at birth (AFAB) individuals. The approach to inserting an IPP in a neophallus is different and more challenging compared to that of an anatomical penis due to the absence of anatomical structures such as the corpora cavernosa, and the more tenuous blood supply of the neophallus and reconstructed urethra. In addition, the ideal surgical techniques and devices for use in the neophallus have not been defined. This review systematically summarises the literature on the insertion of IPP in the neophallus of individuals AFAB. In particular, the described techniques, types of devices used and peri-operative and patient-reported outcomes are emphasised. An initial search of the PubMed database was performed on 16 September 2022 and an updated search was performed on 26 May 2023. Overall, 185 articles were screened for eligibility and 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Two studies reported outcomes on the zephyr surgical implant 475 FTM device and the others reported outcomes on the Boston Scientific AMS 600/700 CX 3-piece inflatable, AMS Ambicor 2-piece inflatable, Coloplast Titan or Dynaflex devices. Overall, 1106 IPPs were analysed. The infection rate was 4.2%-50%, with most studies reporting an infection rate of <30%. Mechanical failure or dysfunction occurred in 1.4%-36.4%, explantation was required in 3.3%-41.6%, and implant revision or replacement was performed in 6%-70%. Overall, 51.4%-90.6% of patients were satisfied and 77%-100% were engaging in sexual intercourse. An IPP in a neophallus is an acceptable option to achieve rigidity for sexual intercourse. However, this challenging procedure has good reports of patient and partner satisfaction despite significant risks of complications.
PubMed: 37719136
DOI: 10.1177/17562872231199584 -
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Apr 2021Penile prosthesis implantation (PPI), performed with or without adjunct straightening techniques, is one of the available surgical options in cases of Peyronie's disease...
INTRODUCTION
Penile prosthesis implantation (PPI), performed with or without adjunct straightening techniques, is one of the available surgical options in cases of Peyronie's disease (PD) with concomitant erectile dysfunction (ED). The aim of the study was to systematically identify and evaluate evidence regarding IPP in patients with PD and ED.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Using Cochrane's methodological recommendations on systematic reviews, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on clinical research regarding the use of PPI, alone or in combination with any straightening maneuvers in the treatment of patients with PD and ED. The search was carried until January 2020. We included studies in English language with primary population patients with PD and ED who underwent IPP with the intent to treat the PD. All studies that were not original clinical research articles, reported insufficient data or included fewer than 5 patients were excluded from the final analysis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
In total 43 clinical articles with more than 2000 patients (N.=2143) investigating the effects of penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) for the treatment of PD with or without ED were included in the study. Depending on the severity of the penile curvature, additional penile deformities (i.e. hourglass deformity), penile length, prior operations and surgeons experience, 6 main categories of surgical techniques of PPI for penile straightening and treatment of PD were identified: PPI only, PPI with modelling of the penis, PPI with plication of the penis on the convex side of the curvature, PPI with plaque incision(s), PPI with plaque incision/excision plus grafting and PPI with grafting and penile lengthening.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, patients with PD and ED can expect excellent outcomes with PPI against a minimal risk of side effects. No definite conclusions can be made regarding which technique is superior.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Implantation; Penile Induration; Penile Prosthesis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33179867
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.20.03890-4 -
Sexual Medicine Reviews May 2024In cases of a noninfected malfunctioning inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device, surgeons often opt to exchange all of the device rather than the defective component...
A systematic review comparing different approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis revision: partial-component exchange, complete-component exchange, or reservoir "drain and retain".
INTRODUCTION
In cases of a noninfected malfunctioning inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device, surgeons often opt to exchange all of the device rather than the defective component for fear of an increased infection rate and future mechanical dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether partial-component exchange of an IPP device has comparable outcomes to complete explant and replacement of an IPP device with or without a retained reservoir.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR guidelines. Searches were performed on MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 2023, identifying studies reporting outcomes and complications of revision surgery for noninfected malfunctioning IPP devices. Three groups were compared: those undergoing single- or 2-component exchange, those with complete explantation and replacement, and those with replacement of all components while retaining the primary reservoir.
RESULTS
Analysis included 11 articles comprising 12 202 patients with complete device replacement, 234 with partial device exchange, and 151 with retained reservoirs following revision. Mean ages ranged from 62 to 68 years, with median follow-up times between 3 and 84 months. Partial-component exchange showed a higher infection rate (6.3%) as compared with complete replacement (2.7%) and reservoir retention (3.9%). Similarly, partial exchange had a higher complication rate (23.9%) when compared with complete replacement (11.3%) and reservoir retention (19.6%). Mechanical failure rates for partial exchange were similar across the 3 groups (10%, 2.8%, and 5.8%, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Partial-component exchange during IPP revision is associated with higher infection and perioperative complication rates but comparable rates of mechanical failure as compared with complete-component replacement, with or without retaining the original reservoir.
PubMed: 38798020
DOI: 10.1093/sxmrev/qeae035 -
International Journal of Impotence... Nov 2020A phalloplasty is a complex genital reconstruction procedure of creating a neophallus. Several techniques to create a neophallus are described, based on different... (Review)
Review
A phalloplasty is a complex genital reconstruction procedure of creating a neophallus. Several techniques to create a neophallus are described, based on different vascularized flaps, and each of them has its advantages and drawbacks. The aim of this study is to present musculocutaneous latissimus dorsi (MLD) flap as a viable option for total phalloplasty, with an interest in clinical outcomes and complications. A comprehensive literature review of all available reports about MLD flap phalloplasty was made. The following keywords were used on PubMed: latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous/myocutaneous free flap and phalloplasty. Research criteria revealed five articles and the results of 182 patients were analyzed. A total number of the patients, indications, operative technique, follow-up period, postoperative results, and complications were presented. In conclusion, MLD free flap presents a good choice for phalloplasty providing sufficient amount of tissue for safe implantation of penile prosthesis and successful penetrative sexual intercourse. The erogenous sensitivity is preserved with clitoris or glans penis incorporated into the base of the neophallus, and voiding in a standing position is achievable after urethral reconstruction. The main drawback is the lack of tactile sensation of the neophallus and the significant advantage is a well-concealed donor site.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Penile Prosthesis; Penis; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Surgical Flaps; Urethra
PubMed: 33184508
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-020-00371-x -
Cureus Nov 2020There are only two three-piece inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) available to patients in the American market: the AMS (American Medical Systems) 700 series (Boston... (Review)
Review
There are only two three-piece inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) available to patients in the American market: the AMS (American Medical Systems) 700 series (Boston Scientific, Massachusetts) and the Coloplast Titan® series (Coloplast, Minnesota), and data comparing the two are scant. The aim of our study was to summarize the current scientific evidence comparing the two. A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed. A 10-year filter was placed to include only studies published after Coloplast launched the Titan Touch® release pump. Eligibility criteria included articles discussing specifically the AMS 700 and Coloplast Titan® models. Further searches for studies on patient/partner satisfaction were conducted. Abstracts were reviewed to include studies focusing specifically on the models we are studying and studies on patient satisfaction using the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire. The Coloplast device demonstrated slightly greater resistance to the stimulated forces of penetration and gravity. Coloplast implants coated with vancomycin/gentamicin had the highest infection rate followed by the AMS penile prosthesis and the rifampin/gentamicin coating had the lowest infection rate. Prosthesis durability and survival were similar between both brands. Overall satisfaction was high but comparisons are inconsistent. The literature is inconclusive about which device is superior. We suggest randomized, multicenter, prospective studies to help further elucidate the highlights of each product.
PubMed: 33304685
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.11350