PD20-07 A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-OPERATIVE URINARY RETENTION (POUR) IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING IMPLANTATION OF INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS: A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Surgical Therapy I (PD20)1 Apr 2020PD20-07 A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-OPERATIVE URINARY RETENTION (POUR) IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING IMPLANTATION OF INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS: A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE Johnathan Drevik*, Jacob Lucas, Jay Simhan, and Joshua Cohn Johnathan Drevik*Johnathan Drevik* More articles by this author , Jacob LucasJacob Lucas More articles by this author , Jay SimhanJay Simhan More articles by this author , and Joshua CohnJoshua Cohn More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000870.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The rates of Post-operative urinary retention (POUR) following inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) are not well defined but are of interest given the potential implications for length of stay and feasibility of outpatient surgery. Herein we attempt to characterize and identify potential risk factors for POUR after IPP. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who underwent IPP implantation by a single surgeon (JS) from January 2014 to December 2018 with data regarding POUR. A Foley catheter was placed at the start of each case and the bladder emptied prior to removal at the end of the procedure. Post-void residuals (PVR) were checked after the first void post-operatively, and indwelling catheterization or intermittent catheterization performed for PVR >350 mL or symptomatic retention at lesser volumes. We compared patients who experienced post-operative urinary retention (POUR), defined as need for urinary catheterization at any time postoperatively, to patients who did not experience post-operative urinary retention (N-POUR). Patients were excluded if they underwent a concomitant procedure or had a diagnosis of neurogenic bladder. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients comprised the study population, of whom 53 (26.5%) experienced POUR and 147 (73.5%) did not. There were no differences between groups with regards to age, race, BMI, ASA, or other comorbidities (Table 1). Patients who experienced POUR had a median retained volume of 546 cc (25-75 IQR 378.0-693.5 cc). Among men with POUR, 33 (62.3%) had resolution of their urinary retention prior to discharge, while the remainder 20 (37.7%) were discharged with a Foley catheter. The rate of POUR was significantly lower in patients with a prior history of radical prostatectomy (10.7% vs 32.6%, p<0.001). On multivariable analysis, absent history of prostatectomy (OR 2.9, 95%CI 1.1-8.0, p=0.03) was found to be an independent risk factor for POUR. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, ∼25% of patients undergoing implantation of IPP developed POUR requiring catheterization. It is likely that bladder outlet obstruction and/or detrusor underactivity—which share similar risk factors as vasculogenic ED—result in POUR following IPP placement. Clinicians should carefully counsel patients regarding their risk. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e449-e450 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Johnathan Drevik* More articles by this author Jacob Lucas More articles by this author Jay Simhan More articles by this author Joshua Cohn More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...