MP45-01 UTILIZATION OF INTRACAVERNOSAL INJECTION AND PENILE ULTRASOUND IN THE EVALUATION OF ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION AND PEYRONIE′S DISEASE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP45-01 UTILIZATION OF INTRACAVERNOSAL INJECTION AND PENILE ULTRASOUND IN THE EVALUATION OF ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION AND PEYRONIE′S DISEASE Halle Foss, David Ebbott, Zachary Prebay, Michael Li, and Paul Chung Halle FossHalle Foss More articles by this author , David EbbottDavid Ebbott More articles by this author , Zachary PrebayZachary Prebay More articles by this author , Michael LiMichael Li More articles by this author , and Paul ChungPaul Chung More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003291.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Intracavernosal injections (ICI) and penile ultrasound (PUS) play diagnostic roles for patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) and Peyronie′s disease (PD). They can help to identify vascular and anatomical changes that may guide medical and surgical management; however, contemporary utilization rates of ICI and PUS have not been described. Our objective was to evaluate the rates of ICI and PUS utilization in patients with ED and PD using a multi-center global database. METHODS: We queried the TriNetX database for adult men based on ICD-10 codes with ED (N52) being medically treated with phosphodiesterase (PDE)-5 inhibitors and patients with PD (N48.6) from 2002-2022. CPT codes were then utilized to identify patients who underwent further evaluation with intracaversonal injection (54235) alone and PUS (93980, 93981). CPT codes were also utilized to identify subsequent treatment with injection therapy for PD (54200), penile plication (54360), plaque excision +/- grafting (PEG) (54110, 54111, 54112), and penile prosthesis (54400, 54401, 54405). RESULTS: The cohort with ED on a PDE-5 inhibitor in the TriNetX database included 627,614 patients. 9,097 patients (1.4%) had a PUS and of those, 965 (10.6%) underwent penile prosthesis placement (Figure 1A). The cohort with PD included 46,175 patients. PUS was performed in 5,382 (11.6%) patients with PD. Of these patients, 1,025 (19%) then underwent injection treatment, 506 (9.4%) penile plication, 280 (5.2%) PEG, and 584 (10.9%) penile prosthesis placement (Figure 1B). ICI alone was performed in 3,243 (7%) PD patients. Of these patients, 636 (19.6%) then underwent injection therapy, 1,140 (35.1%) penile plication, 105 (3.2%) PEG, and 385 (11.9%) penile prosthesis placement (Figure 1B). CONCLUSIONS: PUS is infrequently utilized in patients with ED. In PD patients, PUS is used more commonly than ICI alone. After evaluation with PUS for PD, the most common therapy is injection. After an evaluation with ICI only, the most common therapy is penile plication. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e621 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Halle Foss More articles by this author David Ebbott More articles by this author Zachary Prebay More articles by this author Michael Li More articles by this author Paul Chung More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...