PD28-10 CONCOMITANT UROLOGIC PROCEDURES DURING PENILE PROSTHESIS SURGERY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022PD28-10 CONCOMITANT UROLOGIC PROCEDURES DURING PENILE PROSTHESIS SURGERY Jason Levy, Ridwan Alam, William Ducomb, and Arthur Burnett Jason LevyJason Levy More articles by this author , Ridwan AlamRidwan Alam More articles by this author , William DucombWilliam Ducomb More articles by this author , and Arthur BurnettArthur Burnett More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002576.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of literature investigating outcomes for patients who undergo concomitant non-reconstructive urologic procedures at the time of 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement. Our aim is to analyze outcomes including risk factors, complications, and procedure types for patients who underwent IPP placement with concomitant non-reconstructive urologic procedures at a high-volume institution. METHODS: A retrospective IRB approved (IRB00205900) review of patients undergoing IPP placement at Johns Hopkins from January 2007-July 2021 was conducted. We identified 330 patients who underwent IPP placement and a concomitant urologic procedure. We excluded patients who had concomitant penile straightening procedures, artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), and reconstructive penile procedures. The remaining cohort included 45 patients who had a non-reconstructive urologic procedure done concurrently. A control group of 127 patients who underwent IPP placement after 2015 with no concomitant procedures was utilized. All patients underwent penoscrotal approach. RESULTS: Concomitant procedure type was divided into endourology (n=24; 53.3%), penile (n=9; 20.0%), scrotal (n=10; 22.2%), neuromodulation (n=1; 2.2%), and oncologic (n=1; 2.2%). Compared to the control group, patients in the concomitant group were younger (p=0.04) but more overweight (p=0.02) and less healthy, as measured by comorbidities (p=0.03). Between the two groups (Table 1), there was no significant difference in device infections (concomitant 2.2% vs control 1.6%, p=0.78) or device erosions (4.4% vs 3.2%, p=0.68). There was no difference in the proportion of patients requiring future IPP revision (13.3% vs 10.2%, p=0.50). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis demonstrates the largest cohort of patients undergoing non-reconstructive urologic procedures at the time of IPP placement. Our results demonstrate that concomitant non-reconstructive procedures confer no increased risk of prosthetic adverse events, regardless of procedure type. Source of Funding: None © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e502 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jason Levy More articles by this author Ridwan Alam More articles by this author William Ducomb More articles by this author Arthur Burnett More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...