(036) Outcomes of Penile Prosthesis Implantation after Transgender Phalloplasty: A Single Center Study

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Many transmen chose to pursue penile prosthesis (PP) implantation as a stage of genital gender affirming surgery. The prosthesis facilitates penetrative intercourse, as the neophallus lacks rigid erectile tissue. While PP placement is a well-established and relatively low-risk surgical treatment option for erectile dysfunction is the cis-male population, published series of post-phalloplasty prosthesis placement have demonstrated a higher rate of complications and subsequent explant. Objective To demonstrate that an integrated surgical team that participates in all stages of phalloplasty creation can improve penile prosthesis outcomes in transmen. Methods We performed a retrospective review of all transmen who underwent PP implantation at our institution from January 2015 through October 2021, yielding a cohort of 44 men. Men who underwent phalloplasty for another reason (trauma, infection, priapism) were excluded. Both malleable (MPP) and inflatable (IPP) prostheses were included in the cohort. Home phalloplasty refers to phalloplasty performed at our institution, and outside phalloplasty at another institution. The surgical technique emphasizes exclusion of urinary flora from the operative field and avoiding excess anchor material to minimize niduses for infection. We analyzed preoperative, operative, and post-operative characteristics, stratified by whether the phalloplasty was performed at our institution. We also performed logistic regression for predictors of explant in the cohort. Results Cohort characteristics and outcomes are represented in Table 1. 44 PPs were implanted 28 at our institution, 16 at an outside institution. Average age was 32 and 33 in the cohorts, respectively. IPPs were more commonly implanted than MPP. Notably, operative time was significantly lower if the phalloplasty had been constructed at our institution (p=0.014). 16 men total required explant, 7/28 (25%) in the home phalloplasty group and 9/16 (56.3%) in the outside phalloplasty group. Predictors of explantation are shown in Table 2. Significant predictors included age (p=0.013), smoking (p=0.030), operative time (p=0.007), whether the phalloplasty was performed at our institution (p=0.043), and the number of pre-PP revision surgeries (p=0.047). On multivariate logistic regression including all variables significant on univariate analysis, only age (p=0.032) and operative time (p=0.010) remained significant predictors. Conclusions We present a large post-phalloplasty penile prosthesis cohort, demonstrating exceedingly low infection rate and improved explant rate in a cohort of men who all underwent both phalloplasty and prosthesis placement with the same surgical team. Our analysis suggests that phalloplasty characteristics, patient characteristics, and operative time can influence penile prosthesis outcomes. Disclosure No