MP25-19 SURVEY ON THE CONTEMPORARY MANAGEMENT OF INTRAOPERATIVE URETHRAL INJURIES DURING PENILE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Surgical Therapy I1 Apr 2017MP25-19 SURVEY ON THE CONTEMPORARY MANAGEMENT OF INTRAOPERATIVE URETHRAL INJURIES DURING PENILE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION Stephanie J. Sexton, Michael A. Granieri, and Aaron C. Lentz Stephanie J. SextonStephanie J. Sexton More articles by this author , Michael A. GranieriMichael A. Granieri More articles by this author , and Aaron C. LentzAaron C. Lentz More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.769AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Intraoperative urethral injury is an uncommon event during the placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) with an estimated incidence of up to 3%. The conventional teaching is to perform primary repair, place a transurethral catheter, and abort the procedure. Recently, alternative management strategies have been proposed with continuation of the implant following urethral injury. The objective of this study is to evaluate surgeon management of urethral injury during IPP and determine if fellowship training influences practice. METHODS An online survey was sent to the society listservs of the Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons (GURS) and The Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA). Physicians were queried on their fellowship training, experience with IPP and urethroplasty, IPP surgical approach, and management of urethral injuries during IPP implantation. The response data was analyzed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test were used to determine associations between variables. RESULTS There were a total of 131 survey responses. Of the responders, 41.2% were GURS fellowship trained, 19.1% were SMSNA trained, 30.5% were non-fellowship trained, and 9.2% trained in other fellowships. 25.4% of participants perform >50 IPPs per year, while 37.7% perform 20-50 and 36.9% perform fewer than 20 per year. Urethral injury during IPP implantation was uncommon, with 26.2% reporting 0 injuries, 58.5% reporting 1-3 injuries, and 15.4% reporting >3 career injuries. Injuries were most commonly encountered during corporal dilation (71.1%), compared to corporal exposure (12.5%), or penile straightening maneuvers (7.0%). There was no statistically significant difference with aborting or continuing implantation among GURS, SMSNA, and/or non-fellowship trained surgeons. Of all responders, 55% abort the procedure after distal urethral injury, while 45% continue the procedure with unilateral or bilateral insertion of cylinders. For those who chose to abort the procedure, the next implant was attempted in <6 weeks in 9.3%, 6-12 weeks in 45.7%, and >12 weeks in 41.1%. Patient factors that increased likelihood of aborting procedure in the case of urethral injury included immunosuppression, spinal cord injury, and clean intermittent catheterization-dependence. CONCLUSIONS Urethral injury during IPP implantation is a rare but established risk of the procedure. Fellowship training does not appear to have an effect on intraoperative management of this injury. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e318 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Stephanie J. Sexton More articles by this author Michael A. Granieri More articles by this author Aaron C. Lentz More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...