-
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 -
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 -
Sexual Medicine Reviews Oct 2022The efficacy, safety, and postoperative outcomes of synchronous surgery for concomitant erectile dysfunction (ED) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) remain unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The efficacy, safety, and postoperative outcomes of synchronous surgery for concomitant erectile dysfunction (ED) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) remain unclear.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the available synchronous surgical approaches for concomitant ED and SUI and to assess the reoperation rates compared to asynchronous surgery and surgery only for ED or SUI.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases until June 2022 for relevant studies. Based on data availability, we performed a meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) comparing reoperation rates after synchronous surgery in patients with concomitant ED and SUI versus asynchronous surgery, as well as surgery solely for ED or SUI (PROSPERO: CRD42022326941).
RESULTS
We included 18 studies in the systematic review (16,517 patients) and 5 in the meta-analysis. Comparing synchronous implantation of penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) versus asynchronous surgery, no statistically significant differences were observed in the reoperation rates [OR:0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-1.84, I2:0%). Comparing synchronous implantation of both penile prosthesis and AUS versus implantation of only a penile prosthesis or an AUS, combined surgery was associated with higher reoperation rates (OR:2.02, 95%CI: 1.29-3.16, I2:36% and OR:1.7, 95%CI: 1.25-2.32, I2:0%, respectively). Synchronous surgery led to high satisfaction rates and significant improvement in ED and SUI. Evidence for the combination of penile prosthesis with a male sling or the ProACT device is low, but data suggests it may be safe and effective. The synchronous placement of a Mini-Jupette sling and penile prosthesis represents a promising treatment modality for the correction of ED and mild SUI and/or climacturia.
CONCLUSIONS
Synchronous penile prosthesis and AUS implantation appears safe and effective in patients with severe ED and SUI. Further high-quality studies are mandatory to strengthen the current scarce evidence for synchronous surgery in patients with ED and SUI.
Topics: Humans; Male; Erectile Dysfunction; Urinary Incontinence, Stress; Penile Implantation; Reoperation; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 37051965
DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.08.003 -
Current Urology Reports Feb 2023Despite the current surgical advances and patients' satisfactions after penile prosthesis (PP) implantation, there has been paucity of data on reported partner... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Despite the current surgical advances and patients' satisfactions after penile prosthesis (PP) implantation, there has been paucity of data on reported partner satisfaction and their quality-of-life (QoL). Our objective was to summarize the current literature on partner satisfaction for both heterosexual and non-heterosexual populations, respectively. We specifically conducted a systematic review according to the Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards, and stratified studies into three tiers by methodological rigor.
RECENT FINDINGS
After an initial search of 172 articles, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria for the final review: 30 for heterosexual partner satisfaction, and 3 for LGBTQ patient satisfaction were included due to lack of published literature on partner satisfaction for LGBTQ patients. For heterosexual partner satisfaction, 10 studies were classified as Tier 1, 11 studies were classified as Tier 2, and 9 studies were classified as Tier 3. From an initial search of 13 records, three studies consisting of 272 patients met the inclusion criteria for our LGBTQ review. Across all the tiers, studies noted satisfaction rates between 50 and 90% and improved satisfaction and sexual QoL metrics compared to pre-surgery rates. That said, partner satisfaction rates were also consistently lower than patient satisfaction rates. Although the range of evidence quality varies, the available literature suggests significant improvements in and relatively high rates of partner satisfaction after PP implantation. Given the diversity of study designs and widespread use of non-validated or non-specific questionnaires in the current literature, future research should focus on prospective studies and/or data collection using validated, PP-specific questionnaires.
Topics: Male; Humans; Penile Prosthesis; Erectile Dysfunction; Quality of Life; Prospective Studies; Penile Implantation; Patient Satisfaction; Personal Satisfaction; Sexual and Gender Minorities
PubMed: 36670232
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-022-01126-5 -
Actas Urologicas Espanolas 2023Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation is an effective option for erectile dysfunction. Although initially PP surgery was carried out in an inpatient setting, there is a...
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation is an effective option for erectile dysfunction. Although initially PP surgery was carried out in an inpatient setting, there is a growing trend to implant PP as a major ambulatory surgery (MAS). This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify available evidence of the implantation of PP under MAS setting and go carry out a comparison between MAS and inpatient procedures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and MEDES electronic databases and non-indexed supplements for scientific congresses were searched to identify articles related to the surgical implantation of PP in MAS up to February 2021. Key search terms included penile prosthesis, erectile dysfunction, ambulatory surgery, ambulatory care, and surgery.
RESULTS
Among 171 publications retrieved (51 PubMed, 73 EMBASE, 3 Cochrane, 2 using MEDES and 42 manual searching), 5 studies were finally selected. There were no significant differences between MAS or inpatient setting in terms of the type of device, surgical approach, or location of reservoir. Complication rates observed in both groups were similar. Implantation of PP in MAS was less expensive than inpatient surgery and was associated with acceptable patient satisfaction rates and adequate pain control.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies demonstrated that outpatient PP surgery can achieve similar outcomes in terms of safety and satisfaction to implantation of PP in the inpatient setting, while it could reduce costs and improve the efficiency. This research could support decision makers to extend PP surgery into the ambulatory setting.
Topics: Humans; Male; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Erectile Dysfunction; Penile Implantation; Penile Prosthesis; Penis
PubMed: 36319559
DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2022.08.019 -
Sexual Medicine Reviews Oct 2022The efficacy, safety, and postoperative outcomes of synchronous surgery for concomitant erectile dysfunction (ED) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) remain unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The efficacy, safety, and postoperative outcomes of synchronous surgery for concomitant erectile dysfunction (ED) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) remain unclear.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the available synchronous surgical approaches for concomitant ED and SUI and to assess the reoperation rates compared to asynchronous surgery and surgery only for ED or SUI.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases until June 2022 for relevant studies. Based on data availability, we performed a meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) comparing reoperation rates after synchronous surgery in patients with concomitant ED and SUI versus asynchronous surgery, as well as surgery solely for ED or SUI (PROSPERO: CRD42022326941).
RESULTS
We included 18 studies in the systematic review (16,517 patients) and 5 in the meta-analysis. Comparing synchronous implantation of penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) versus asynchronous surgery, no statistically significant differences were observed in the reoperation rates [OR:0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-1.84, I:0%). Comparing synchronous implantation of both penile prosthesis and AUS versus implantation of only a penile prosthesis or an AUS, combined surgery was associated with higher reoperation rates (OR:2.02, 95%CI: 1.29-3.16, I:36% and OR:1.7, 95%CI: 1.25-2.32, I:0%, respectively). Synchronous surgery led to high satisfaction rates and significant improvement in ED and SUI. Evidence for the combination of penile prosthesis with a male sling or the ProACT device is low, but data suggests it may be safe and effective. The synchronous placement of a Mini-Jupette sling and penile prosthesis represents a promising treatment modality for the correction of ED and mild SUI and/or climacturia.
CONCLUSIONS
Synchronous penile prosthesis and AUS implantation appears safe and effective in patients with severe ED and SUI. Further high-quality studies are mandatory to strengthen the current scarce evidence for synchronous surgery in patients with ED and SUI. Pyrgidis N, Barham DW, Hammad M, et al. Synchronous Surgical Management of Erectile Dysfunction and Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reoperation Rates. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:782-790.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Prosthesis; Reoperation; Urinary Incontinence, Stress; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial
PubMed: 36175310
DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.08.003 -
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 -
Urology Aug 2022The purpose of this study was to determine long-term survival of inflatable penile prosthesis (PP) and identify potential factors that may influence device survival. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this study was to determine long-term survival of inflatable penile prosthesis (PP) and identify potential factors that may influence device survival. We performed a systematic review of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of men treated with inflatable PP with at least 5 years of device survival data. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate device survival at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years of follow-up. The robustness of the meta-analysis results was evaluated in a 1-study removed sensitivity analysis and sources of heterogeneity among studies were investigated with subgroup analysis. In 12 studies (20,161 patients; median age 57 years), PP device survival was 93.3% at 1 year, 91.0% at 3 years, 87.2% at 5 years, 76.8% at 10 years, 63.7% at 15 years, and 52.9% at 20 years. The results of the meta-analysis were not significantly influenced by single study effects in a 1-study removed sensitivity analysis. In a subgroup analysis, 5-year device survival rates were 90.6% vs 82.1% (P = .01) comparing newer vs older studies; no other patient or study design characteristic was statistically associated with device survival rates. In conclusion, the median device survival time of an inflatable PP is approximately 20 years. The factors responsible for improved device survival in newer studies remain unclear and warrant further study.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Penile Implantation; Penile Prosthesis; Prosthesis Design; Prosthesis Failure; Survival Rate
PubMed: 35421510
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.03.026 -
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 -
Sexual Medicine Reviews Jul 2022A penile prosthesis (PP) may be inserted for erectile dysfunction (ED) and/or urinary management in men with spinal cord injury (SCI). This group of patients is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
A penile prosthesis (PP) may be inserted for erectile dysfunction (ED) and/or urinary management in men with spinal cord injury (SCI). This group of patients is considered high risk for complications due to their reduced mobility and sensation.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the complication and satisfaction rates following PP insertion in patients with SCI.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA checklist. The Medline/PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched up to July 27th 2021. Studies on men ≥18 years who had a PP inserted for ED secondary to SCI were included. Two reviewers independently screened all articles, assessed for risk of bias and performed data extraction.
RESULTS
Eleven studies including 475 men with SCI were included for analysis. The overall complication rate was 4.2-61.1%. Specific complications included infection, 0-16%; erosion, 3.7-11.1% and mechanical failure, 0-16.7%. The explantation rate was 2.1-16.7% and the revision rate was 2.7-44.4%. Overall, 79.2-92.9% of men were satisfied with their PP and, 36-86.1% were having satisfactory sexual intercourse. In those who used the PP for urinary management ± ED, 86.5--92.8%% were satisfied. Men with SCI had higher rates of complications compared to those without SCI (infection, 2.1-9.1% vs non-SCI, 0.8-5.7%; erosion, 2.1-8.3% vs non-SCI, 0%; explanation, 2.1-8.3% vs non-SCI, 0.8-5.7%).
CONCLUSION
PP is an option for SCI patients for the management of end-stage ED or urinary function, but the rate of infection, erosion and implant explantation is higher compared with men without SCI. Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the preferred PP due to the lower risk of erosion, however, they are prone to mechanical failure and require good hand dexterity. A thorough pre-operative counselling is essential. Pang KH, Muneer A, Alnajjar HM, et al. A Systematic Review of Penile Prosthesis Insertion in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:461-470.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Patient Satisfaction; Penile Implantation; Penile Prosthesis; Penis; Spinal Cord Injuries
PubMed: 35221231
DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.01.004