Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis.

Abstract

To compare perioperative results, safety and efficacy profile in patients receiving inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) via penoscrotal (PS) or minimally invasive infrapubic (MII) approach for erectile dysfunction. A matched-pair analysis was performed including 42 patients undergoing IPP implantation via PS (n=21) or MII (n=21) between 2011 and 2016. Clinical and surgical data were prospectively collected. Patients' and partners' outcomes were assessed by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) and Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaires. Mean (SD) operative time was 128 (40.6) min in group PS and 91 (43.0) min in group MII (p=0.041). Complications occurred in 3/21 (14%) and 2/21 (10%) patients in groups PS and MII (p=0.832). Overall, no differences were observed concerning the device utilisation (p=0.275). However, in group MII 4/21 (19%) patients were able to resume sexual activity prior to 4 postoperative weeks, while in group PS no patient was (p=0.012). Mean (SD) scores for questionnaires were similar between groups PS and MII: IIEF [20.9 (7.3) vs. 20.7 (4.8); p=0.132], patient EDITS [76.0 (25.6) vs. 74.7 (20.8); p=0.256] and partner EDITS [72.5 (29.1) vs. 73.1 (21.4); p=0.114]. Similarly, QoLSPP showed comparable results among the groups PS and MII: functional domain [3.9 (1.4) vs. 4.0 (1.2); p=0.390], personal [4.0 (1.2) vs. 4.1 (1.0); p=0.512], relational [3.7 (1.5) vs. 3.9 (1.2); p=0.462] and social [4.0 (1.2) vs. 3.9 (1.2); p=0.766]. PS and MII demonstrated to be safe and efficient techniques, leading to high level of both patients and partners satisfaction. Additionally, the minimally invasive infrapubic approach showed a shorter operative time and a tendency for a faster return to sexual activity.