(430) Does Partner Involvement And Education In Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery Influence Patient Satisfaction Rates?

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) devices are an effective form of treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). Previous studies have indicated a high patient and partner satisfaction rate for IPP devices; however, 15-20% of patients may not be satisfied even with a working implant. Understanding the influence and impact of partner satisfaction among satisfaction rates in this cohort of patients undergoing IPP placement is under continued investigation. Objective Our objective was to investigate whether partner satisfaction with IPP devices may influence patient satisfaction rates. We did this via evaluation of differences in patient satisfaction rates based on partner education, knowledge, and involvement in operation of IPP devices via a validated questionnaire in our single-site cohort. Methods We identified 280 patients who underwent IPP placement at our single-center institution from 2017 to 2019 through review of electronic health records, with 111 patients able to be contacted. Of these, 81 patients agreed to participate and responded to our telephone survey regarding the following: relationship status, partner awareness of IPP device pre- and post-operation, partner involvement in patient recovery, partner knowledge of device operation, and partner involvement in IPP operation. The Erectile Dysfunction Inventory for Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) validated questionnaire was administered and patients were surveyed on their opinion on the importance of partner involvement in patient satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being extremely important. Survey question answers were divided into Yes and No groups and mean EDITS scores were compared. Two-tailed t-tests were used to compare groups with p<0.05 considered to be significant. Results We found that 84.0% of patients (n=68) had partners who knew preoperatively about the device, 88.9% of patients (n=72) had partners who knew postoperatively about the device, and 81.5% of patients (n=66) had partners involved in their postoperative recovery. 46.9% of patients (n=38) had partners who knew how to operate the device, and 9.9% of patients (n=8) had partners who operated the device. Mean EDITS score for the patient cohort was 88.61. There was no statistically significant difference found in the mean EDITS score between any of our comparison groups (Table 1). Additionally, there was no significant difference in average rating of importance of partner device involvement on patient satisfaction between patients with partners who operate the device and those with partners who do not operate the device, with average scores of 4.50 (n=8) and 3.97 (n=54), respectively (p=0.40). Conclusions These preliminary findings suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in IPP device satisfaction rates between patients with partners who are involved or operate the device and those with partners who are not involved nor operate the device. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Run Wang, MD, FACS is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Teleflex.