Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Revision Research Articles

Outcomes related to penile prosthesis reservoir removal: a 7-year multi-institutional experience.

The 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the most widely used device for erectile dysfunction refractory to medications, containing a reservoir inserted into the retropubic space (RPS) or an alternative/ectopic space (AES). Indications for removal of the reservoir include malfunction, malposition, or infection. In revision cases without infection, reservoir removal is sometimes optional. We reviewed outcomes and complications related to reservoir removal from a large multi-institutional series. We retrospectively reviewed databases at 6 institutions over 7years. Patients with artificial urethral sphincter, urethral sling, or mini-jupette were excluded. Outcomes and complications related to IPP reservoir removal were analyzed. Data were collected, but only reservoir-related complications at surgery were included. Data were compared between the RPS and AES cohorts to evaluate differences with a χ2 test, with significance at P < .05. Of 215 cases, there were 172 RPS and 43 AES reservoirs. The mean patient age was 65.3years. An overall 131 procedures were due to malfunction and 49 to malposition of an IPP component; 35 were secondary to infection. Among those retained (n = 44), reasons included reuse, avoiding surrounding structure damage, and difficult dissection. Among those removed (n = 171), 15 required a counterincision. To determine the statistical difference between those removed from the RPS and an AES, the χ2 test result was P = .00059, indicating a significant difference in the need for a counterincision between the groups. Complications included bladder perforation (n = 1) in the RPS group and an avulsion of the epigastric vessels requiring abdominal exploration (n = 1) in the AES group. To determine the statistical difference between RPS and AES complications, the χ2 test result was P = .365, indicating no significant difference between the groups. Strengths include being a multi-institutional study with high-volume skilled implanters. Limitations include being a retrospective review, with implanters exclusively performing penoscrotal incisions and not utilizing an infrapubic approach. Last, there was a lack of long-term follow-up with these patients. Removal of an IPP reservoir remains safe, with few intraoperative complications. Surgeons should be aware of the inferior epigastric vessels during removal in an AES or be willing to perform a counterincision to avoid injury to surrounding structures. Surgeons should also obtain preoperative imaging to identify the specific location of the reservoir and adjacent anatomy. This is the first multi-institutional study reviewing outcomes related to reservoir removal during IPP revision or removal surgery.

(114) A Comparative Meta-Analysis of Revision Strategies for Malfunctioning Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: Partial vs Complete Component Replacement With or Without Retained Reservoir

Abstract Introduction In cases of non-infected malfunctioning Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device, surgeon often opt to exchange all the device rather than the defective component for fear of increased infection rate and future mechanical dysfunction. Objective To assess whether partial component exchange of IPP device has comparable outcomes to complete explant and replacement of IPP device with or without retained reservoir. Methods A meta-analysis was completed in line with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR guidelines. A comprehensive search was done on MEDLINE (OVID), PubMed, and Cochrane Library electronic databases from their inceptions until May 2023, identifying studies that reported on outcomes and complications of revision surgery for non-infected malfunctioning IPP device. Three groups were compared: the first group underwent a single or two-component exchange, the second group had a complete explant replacement of the entire device, and the third group had replacement of all components with a drained and retained primary reservoir. Results A total of 9 articles were included in the analysis. 12,152 patients had complete replacement of their device, 128 had partial exchange of their device and 151 patients had “drained and retained” reservoir following revision. The mean age was similar among the 3 groups between 62–68 years. The median follows up time ranged between 12 and 79 months. Partial component ex change had a higher rate of mechanical failure 10.3% versus 1.3% and 2.3 % (p=0.03) for complete and “drain and retain” groups respectively. (Figure 1) Similarly, partial component exchange had higher peri-operative complications at 21.2% compared to complete replacement group 9.5% and “drain and retain” group 14.5% (p=0.022). However, the infection rate was similar among the three groups, 7.7%, 2.7% and 3.3% respectively (p= 0.301). (Figure 2) Conclusions Partial component exchange during IPP revision has higher rates of perioperative complication and future mechanical failure but has similar rate of infection compared to complete component replacement with or without “drain and retain” of original reservoir. Disclosure No.

(391) A Comparative Meta-analysis of Revision Strategies for Malfunctioning Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: Partial Vs Complete Component Replacement With or Without Retained Reservoir

Abstract Introduction In cases of non-infected malfunctioning Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device, surgeon often opt to exchange all the device rather than the defective component for fear of increased infection rate and future mechanical dysfunction. Objective To assess whether partial component exchange of IPP device has comparable outcomes to complete explant and replacement of IPP device with or without retained reservoir. Methods A meta-analysis was completed in line with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR guidelines. A comprehensive search was done on MEDLINE (OVID), PubMed, and Cochrane Library electronic databases from their inceptions until May 2023, identifying studies that reported on outcomes and complications of revision surgery for non-infected malfunctioning IPP device. Three groups were compared: the first group underwent a single or two-component exchange, the second group had a complete explant replacement of the entire device, and the third group had replacement of all components with a 'drained and retained' primary reservoir. Results A total of 9 articles were included in the analysis. 12,152 patients had complete replacement of their device, 128 had partial exchange of their device and 151 patients had “drained and retained” reservoir following revision. The mean age was similar among the 3 groups between 62-68 years. The median follow up time ranged between 12 and 79 months. Partial component exchange had a higher rates of mechanical failure 10.3% versus 1.3% and 2.3 % (p=0.03) for complete and “drain and retain” groups respectively. (Figure 1) Similarly, partial component exchange had higher perioperative complications at 21.2% compared to complete replacement group 9.5% and “drain and retain” group 14.5% (p=0.022). However, the infection rate was similar among the three groups, 7.7%, 2.7% and 3.3% respectively (p= 0.301). (Figure 2) Conclusions Partial component exchange during IPP revision has higher rates of perioperative complication and future mechanical failure but has similar rate of infection compared to complete component replacement with or without “drain and retain” of original reservoir. Disclosure No.

(045) Comparing Bacterial Presence with the Usage of 0.05% Chlorhexidine Gluconate (CHG) Lavage During Urologic Prosthesis Revision Surgery: Update on Results

Abstract Introduction An Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP) is third line surgical therapy for refractory ED. An IPP uses a fluid-filled reservoir with a pump and valve system to activate inflation and deflation. Although penile implants achieve the highest success rates in ED treatment, the possible presence of bacteria on the device itself or bacteria exposure accumulated during the surgery increases the risk of progression into biofilm or infection. Biofilm complicates the bacteria eradication effort and can ultimately jeopardize the implant. Often, the only way to treat the post-op infection is with implant removal. Currently, many preventative measures, such as different perioperative irrigations, are being studied to reduce the number of penile implant infections. Research has shown that irrigation at the time of both infectious and noninfectious surgery lowers subsequent infection rates. Different solutions like saline, antibiotic, betadine, and hydrogen peroxide solutions have been considered. Recently, orthopedic literature has shown that 0.05% Chlorhexidine Gluconate (CHG) lavage has effectively reduced biofilm in artificial joint procedures. Objective The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of CHG lavage on bacterial presence in IPP implant spaces. We hypothesize that CHG will lower bacterial presence after washing out implant spaces at time of replacement for infections and mechanical failure. Methods We aimed to investigate a series of patients who underwent revision IPP surgery while utilizing FDA-approved CHG lavage for irrigation and compared the bacterial presence before and after CHG washout. Additionally, Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), a DNA sequencing technology, was used to further identify the pathogens involved. Results Between 2021 to 2023, 48 patients underwent IPP revision surgery for either infectious or noninfectious reasons. During the operation, a section of the capsule tissue surrounding the implanted IPP pump was first taken and sent for cultures. NGS studies were also sent out. After the implant removal, all implant spaces were irrigated and washed out with CHG (two 450-mL bottles). A second tissue culture was then obtained post washout. Of the 48 patients, there were 4 positive bacterial cultures before washout and 13 positive NGS results. Results of the post CHG washout cultures were all negative. Conclusions It appears that irrigation with 0.05% Chlorhexidine Gluconate solution is an effective antiseptic that can decrease bacterial presence, and hopefully reduce IPP infections. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Microgen Dx, Irrisept.

(419) In Vivo Next Generation Sequencing Identifies More Isolates vs. Standard Culture During Revision Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Insertion: A Single Center Experience

Abstract Introduction The presence of biofilm at the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) component sites, which resists eradication, likely increases postoperative infection rates in revision surgery. The microbiome of (IPP) revision surgery has been shown to be increasingly complex and the weak microbe Staph epidermidis is no longer prevailing and was previously considered the major causative agent for overt infections. Furthermore, next generation sequencing (MicrogenDx, Lubbock, TX, USA) has been used recently to demonstrate that in certain scenarios such as mechanical malfunction, erosion, and infection, specific microbes dominate. Due to the disastrous complications with postoperative IPP infection, it is paramount to provide additional evidence for increased utilization of next generation sequencing over traditional cultures during IPP revision surgery. This will serve to guide postoperative treatment if necessary. Objective We investigated a cohort of IPP revision patients receiving intraoperative low concentration chlorhexidine (CHG) lavage to see whether next generation sequencing or traditional cultures of the pump space reveals more isolates. Methods A total of 31 patients with indwelling IPPs underwent revision surgery for both infectious and noninfectious reasons between May 2021 and March 2022 by a single, high volume implant surgeon who solely uses 0.05% CHG dip and irrigation. Once the pump capsule was entered, swabs were taken from the pump space and sent for traditional culture and next generation sequencing. All cultures were obtained prior to irrigation with 0.05% chlorhexidine (CHG) solution (Irrimax corporation, Lawrenceville, GA, USA). All patients received perioperative clindamycin, gentamicin, and fluconazole. Results 1 patient was excluded due to missing next generation sequencing results. Of the 30 remaining patients, 4 presented with infectious and 26 with noninfectious etiologies. 93% (28/30) patients had negative traditional cultures prior to irrigation with 0.05% CHG; however, 21% (6/28) of these patients had isolates on next generation sequencing. Only 7% (2/30) had positive preop irrigation cultures and isolates on next generation sequencing. Both of these patients presented with infection. 1 of these patients had a concordant next generation sequencing result. However, the other patient had multiple isolates. The traditional culture showed only pseudomonas a. On NGS, it was the third most abundant on NGS at only 4% compared to the most and second most abundant being E. coli at 83% and Klebsiella p. at 12%. Conclusions These results suggests that a greater number of isolates are obtained using next generation sequencing compared to traditional cultures during IPP revision surgery. Consequently, this may lead to better prevention and/or better guide treatment of postoperative IPP infection in the setting of IPP replacement. Although, further studies are needed prior to universally adopting this modality. Disclosure Yes, this is sponsored by industry/sponsor: MicrogenDx. Clarification Industry funding only - investigator initiated and executed study. Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: MicrogenDx.

(457) Comparing Longevity and Need for Revision Between 2- and 3-piece Inflatable Penile Prostheses

Abstract Introduction The management of pharmacotherapy-refractory erectile dysfunction includes placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Although invasive, placement of an IPP is considered a safe procedure with high patient satisfaction rates. Broadly, these devices have two different inflation mechanisms: a two-piece (2p) device consisting of a pump and inflation cylinders, and a three-piece (3p) device, which incorporates a low-pressure reservoir. The relative difference in concealability has long been considered a major factor in patient decision-making. However, the difference in durability and subsequent need for revision amongst the two types of devices have not yet been explored. Objective To investigate differences in longevity and need for revision in patients with 2p and 3p IPPs. Methods After receiving institutional review board approval, a retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent IPP revision or exchange for mechanical failure from 2001 to 2021 at our institution. Only patients who underwent revision of the initial device placed were included in the analysis. Men with retired IPP models or who underwent salvage protocol for infected prosthetics were excluded. Baseline characteristics, including history of diabetes or cardiovascular disease, smoking history, prior radical prostatectomy and/or pelvic radiation, and prior incontinence surgery were recorded. Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age were developed comparing time to revision between 2p and 3p devices. Baseline characteristics were compared with descriptive statistics. Statistical significance was defined as p &amp;lt; 0.05. Results A total of 64 men underwent IPP exchange or revision during the study period, including 38 and 26 men undergoing revision of 2p and 3p devices, respectively. Baseline characteristics are included in Table 1. The median number of days until first revision was 2,695 for 2p IPP compared to 2,101 for 3p IPP (p = 0.27). On unadjusted proportional hazard analysis, there was a significant longevity benefit for 2p IPP compared to all 3p devices [HR: 1.80 95% CI (1.09, 3.00), p = 0.02]. When controlled for patient age, 2p IPPs continued to have a significant longevity benefit compared to 3p devices [HR 1.87 95% CI (1.13, 3.09), p = 0.02]. Conclusions Amongst our institutional cohort, 2p IPPs have significantly longer durability compared to 3p devices. These findings may be used to counsel patients who are deciding between different devices for management of their erectile dysfunction. Disclosure No

(115) Mechanical and Anatomic Indications for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Revision

Abstract Introduction Implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is considered the gold standard for definitive treatment of men with refractory erectile dysfunction. As mechanical devices, IPPs have a finite lifespan, thus often requiring surgical revision or replacement of components over time. Objective To characterize the location of IPP mechanical component failure in patients presenting for revision or explant and stratify them by device manufacturer [Boston Scientific (BSc) and Coloplast (CP)]. Methods A retrospective chart review of our large, single-surgeon, tertiary referral center penile prosthesis database between 2007-2022 was completed to identify all men who underwent IPP revision (partial or full device) or explant. Only cases having intraoperative documentation of cause for IPP failure and device manufacturer were included. Reasons for revision or replacement surgery were categorized into mechanical (tubing, cylinder, or reservoir leak and pump malfunction) and non-mechanical (component herniation, erosion, or crossover). All revisions performed due to non-mechanical reasons were excluded from analysis. Chi-square analysis was used to assess failure rates and causes. A Student’s T-test was used to assess time to revision and demographics. Results Among 933 IPP cases, we identified 133 patients who underwent 272 revision procedures; 154 met inclusion criteria (96 BSc and 58 CP). Forty-four (29%) of those surgeries were revisions of devices placed by outside surgeons, and 110 (71%) were revisions of IPPs inserted at our institution. Average patient age was 67 years for BSc and 63 years for CP (p = 0.086), and the average BMI was 28.7 for BSc and 30.8 for CP (p = 0.122). Time to revision was similar between brands at an average of 39 months for BSc and 56 months for CP (p = 0.11). Eighty-one (53%) of the surgeries were revisions of one affected implant component, 56 (36%) were full device removal/replacement, and 17 (11%) were full explants. Coloplast devices required revision more frequently due to tubing fracture (p &amp;lt; 0.01), and BSc devices required revision more frequently due to pump malfunction (p = 0.02). Both devices rarely failed due to cylinder or reservoir defects (Figure). Conclusions Although time to revision was similar between the two brands, CP devices malfunctioned more often due to tubing fracture whereas BSc devices failed more often due to pump malfunction. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Boston Scientific, Coloplast

Long-term assessment of the safety and effectivity of the mini-jupette sling: 5-year follow-up of the original series.

In 2017, a prospective multicenter, multinational, investigational pilot study was conducted examining outcomes using a novel surgical technique, the Mini-Jupette sling, for the management of erectile dysfunction (ED) patients with climacturia and/or minimal stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after prostate procedures. Climacturia has been reported in up to 64% of patients following radical prostatectomy (RP). We sought to report the 5-year outcomes from this original cohort to assess long-term safety and effectivity of the mini-jupette sling in the treatment of ED and concomitant mild SUI and/or climacturia. This is a single-arm, multicenter, retrospective, observational study. We identified patients who were enrolled in the previous multicenter study with post-RP ED and climacturia and/or mild SUI- 2 PADS PER DAY (PPD) and underwent inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion with simultaneous placement of a mini-jupette sling. Data were collected including current PPD, subjective improvement in climacturia/SUI, complications, need for revision of IPP or additional urinary incontinence surgery, and date of most recent follow-up. SPSS was used for statistical analysis. Of the original 38 patients, 5 have since died and 10 were lost to follow-up with 23/38 (61%) patients available for evaluation of long-term outcomes. The average follow-up time was 59 months (SD =8.8) with a mean age of 69 years (SD =6.8). Most patients (n=21, 91%) had subjective improvement of SUI and climacturia. One patient with persistent bothersome incontinence underwent artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement in 2018 with no complications, while the other is still considering a repeat procedure due to minor but persistent SUI. The mean PPD decreased from 1.4 preoperatively to 0.4 at a mean of 5 years of follow-up. Most patients reported satisfaction in their urinary symptoms with 91% and 73% reporting improvement in SUI and climacturia respectively, compared to 86% and 93% respectively in the original series. One (4.3%) patient had an IPP revision for pump malfunction. There were no device infections reported. The mini-jupette sling appears to be a safe and effective procedure with durable improvements in SUI and climacturia at 5 years of follow-up.

PD42-07 OUTCOMES RELATED TO INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS (IPP) RESERVOIR REMOVAL: A 7-YEAR MULTI-CENTER EXPERIENCE

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023PD42-07 OUTCOMES RELATED TO INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS (IPP) RESERVOIR REMOVAL: A 7-YEAR MULTI-CENTER EXPERIENCE Javier Piraino, Ian Madison, Matthew Ziegelmann, Run Wang, Tobias Kohler, Aram Loeb, Gerard Henry, Robert Cornell, Dylan Supak, Landon Trost, and Jonathan Clavell Javier PirainoJavier Piraino More articles by this author , Ian MadisonIan Madison More articles by this author , Matthew ZiegelmannMatthew Ziegelmann More articles by this author , Run WangRun Wang More articles by this author , Tobias KohlerTobias Kohler More articles by this author , Aram LoebAram Loeb More articles by this author , Gerard HenryGerard Henry More articles by this author , Robert CornellRobert Cornell More articles by this author , Dylan SupakDylan Supak More articles by this author , Landon TrostLandon Trost More articles by this author , and Jonathan ClavellJonathan Clavell More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003352.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The 3-piece IPP is the most widely used device for erectile dysfunction refractory to medications, containing a reservoir inserted into the Space of Retzius (SOR) or an alternative/ectopic space (AES). Indications for removal of the reservoir include malfunction, malposition or infection. In revision cases without infection, reservoir removal is sometimes optional. We review outcomes and complications specifically related to reservoir removal from a large multi-institutional series. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed databases at 6 institutions over 7 years. Patients with artificial urethral sphincter, urethral sling or Mini-jupette were excluded. Outcomes and complications related to IPP reservoir removal were analyzed. Data were collected but only reservoir-related complications at surgery were included. Data were compared between SOR and AES cohorts to evaluate differences with χ2, with significance at p<0.05. RESULTS: Of 215 cases, there were 172 SOR (80%) and 43 AES (20%) reservoirs. Mean patient age was 65.3 years old. 131 (60.9%) procedures were due to malfunction, 49 (22.8%) were due to malposition of an IPP component, and 35 (16.3%) were secondary to infection. Among those retained (N=44, 20.5%), reasons included reuse, avoiding surrounding structure damage, unspecified, and difficult dissection. Among those removed (N=171), 15 (8.8%) required a counter-incision (6 in SOR and 9 in AES). χ2 to determine statistical difference between those removed from SOR and AES found a p=0.00059, indicating significant difference in the need for a counter-incision those groups. Complications included bladder perforation (N=1) in the SOR group, and an avulsion of the epigastric vessels requiring abdominal exploration (N=1) in the AES group. χ2 to determine statistical difference when comparing SOR and AES complications was p=0.365, indicating no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of an IPP reservoir remains safe with few complications. Surgeons should be aware of the inferior epigastric vessels during removal in an AES or be willing to perform a counter incision to avoid injury to surrounding structures. Surgeons should obtain preoperative imaging to identify the specific location of the reservoir and adjacent anatomy. This is the first and largest multi-institutional study reviewing outcomes related to reservoir removal during IPP revision or removal surgery. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e1113 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Javier Piraino More articles by this author Ian Madison More articles by this author Matthew Ziegelmann More articles by this author Run Wang More articles by this author Tobias Kohler More articles by this author Aram Loeb More articles by this author Gerard Henry More articles by this author Robert Cornell More articles by this author Dylan Supak More articles by this author Landon Trost More articles by this author Jonathan Clavell More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

MP62-11 IRRISEPT WASHOUT AT THE TIME OF REVISION SURGERY DECREASES TISSUE CULTURE POSITIVITY: SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP62-11 IRRISEPT WASHOUT AT THE TIME OF REVISION SURGERY DECREASES TISSUE CULTURE POSITIVITY: SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE Alex Fuselier, Chris Smith, Ryan Griggs, Paul H. Chung, Ed Karpman, and Gerard Henry Alex FuselierAlex Fuselier More articles by this author , Chris SmithChris Smith More articles by this author , Ryan GriggsRyan Griggs More articles by this author , Paul H. ChungPaul H. Chung More articles by this author , Ed KarpmanEd Karpman More articles by this author , and Gerard HenryGerard Henry More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003320.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The presence of biofilm, which resists eradication, at the implant site during inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) replacement surgery for infectious or non-infectious reasons appears to increase infection rates. Irrigation at the time of salvage rescue surgery has been shown to work in patients with clinically infected IPPs. Similarly, washout at the time of non-infectious revision surgery has been shown to lower subsequent infection rates. Positive cultures confirm bacterial presence on IPPs in both the clinically infected and uninfected settings. 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in sterile water (Irrisept, Irrimax Corporation, Lawrenceville, GA) has been shown to reduce biofilm in the orthopedic literature. More recently, it has been shown to be highly efficacious against IPP bacteria such as E. coli and Pseudomonas that now predominate eroded and infected devices. We investigated capsule tissue cultures before and after dilute chlorhexidine irrigation in a series of patients who underwent revision surgery. METHODS: A total of 44 patients with indwelling IPPs underwent revision surgery for both infectious and noninfectious reasons between May 2021 and September 2022. A section of capsule tissue surrounding the pump sent for culture & gram staining. After implant removal, we performed a washout of all implant spaces with 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate irrigation, 900cc for noninfectious reasons and 1800cc for infectious reasons. A second tissue culture was obtained adjacent to the prior sample post washout. No other additional antibiotic solutions were utilized for irrigation. All patients received clindamycin, gentamicin, and fluconazole for intravenous prophylaxis. RESULTS: Of the 44 patients, 4 (10%) were with infectious / erosion reasons, 40 (90%) had noninfectious etiologies. 6 (14%) of the 44 patients had evidence of positive bacterial presence prior to washout. 4 of the 4 (100%) patients for infectious / erosion reasons and 2 of the 40 (5%) of the noninfectious etiologies had evidence of bacterial presence prior to washout. All 44 (100%) of these patients had negative cultures after dilute chlorhexidine washout. CONCLUSIONS: Early results of revision washout with 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate in sterile water solution appears to decrease the bacterial load and potentially sterilize the implant capsule at revision surgery of inflatable penile prostheses for both infectious and noninfectious reasons. Consequently, this may lead to future reduction in postoperative infection rates after IPP revision surgery. Source of Funding: Coloplast © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e865 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Alex Fuselier More articles by this author Chris Smith More articles by this author Ryan Griggs More articles by this author Paul H. Chung More articles by this author Ed Karpman More articles by this author Gerard Henry More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Partial Component Exchange of a Non-Infected Inflatable Penile Prosthesis is Associated With a Higher Complication Rate

ObjectiveTo describe the infectious and non-infectious complications in men undergoing Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) revision with partial and complete component exchange for mechanical malfunction. MethodsWe performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent IPP revision. Men undergoing procedures for implant infection were excluded. Patients were divided into those who had complete exchange of the entire device or partial exchange of only one or 2 components. Infectious and non-infectious complications were compared between groups. ResultsThree hundred sixty-eight men had complete exchange of the entire device and 85 had partial component exchange. Men undergoing partial exchange had a significantly higher infection rate (7.1% vs 2.2%, P = .031). The partial exchange group also was more likely to receive antifungals (51.8 vs 16.6%, P < .001), have a modified salvage washout (77.4 vs 60.2%, P = .004), and less likely to receive vancomycin and gentamicin (63.5 vs 83.7%, P < .001). Time to revision was significantly shorter in the partial exchange group (44.9 vs 168.2 months, P < .001). Mean follow-up was slightly longer in the complete exchange group (18.3 vs 13.0 months). In multivariable analysis, partial exchange surgery, vancomycin and gentamicin prophylaxis, modified salvage washout, and antifungal prophylaxis were no longer associated with postoperative infections. The partial exchange group had greater rates of non-infectious complications (21.2% vs 9.5%, P = .005) such as pump malfunction and tubing breakage. ConclusionPatients undergoing partial component revision had more infectious and non-infectious complications. These findings suggest that partial component exchange increases complications in men undergoing IPP revision.

V12-10 IPP CYLINDER EXTRUSION

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022V12-10 IPP CYLINDER EXTRUSION Engy Habashy, and Tobias Kohler Engy HabashyEngy Habashy More articles by this author , and Tobias KohlerTobias Kohler More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002638.10AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for refractory ED. It has the highest satisfaction rates of all ED treatment modalities; however, 7-8% of patients will require reoperations. Mechanical failure, infection, erosion, and extrusion are some of the common indications for reoperations. Our video highlights our IPP revision approach that is aimed to lower the risk of future cylinder extrusion/displacement. We also share a rare case of a retained rear tip during device explanation. METHODS: Our video demonstrates our standard technique of obtaining corporal exposure, performing distal corporotomies to explant the cylinders, and utilizing long-acting sutures to prevent future device extrusion. We also demonstrate an encounter with a retained rear tip and our management approach in that scenario. RESULTS: Our video successfully demonstrates our intraoperative techniques and surgical approach during IPP revision procedures. It also highlights our experience with postoperative cylinder extrusion from 2017-2021. CONCLUSIONS: Our surgical approach during IPP revision using distal corporotomies and long-acting absorbable sutures for corporotomy closure aims to reduce the risk of potential cylinder extrusion. That technique was developed based on our own experience with this complication. Source of Funding: N/A © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e969 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Engy Habashy More articles by this author Tobias Kohler More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

PD28-10 CONCOMITANT UROLOGIC PROCEDURES DURING PENILE PROSTHESIS SURGERY

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 ...

IPP Cylinder Extrusion. Our Experience and Approach

ABSTRACT Introduction The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is a widely accepted surgical treatment for refractory ED. It has the highest satisfaction rates of all ED treatment modalities; however, 7-8% of patients will require reoperations. Mechanical failure, infection, erosion, and extrusion are some of the common indications for reoperations. Objective Our video highlights our IPP revision approach that is aimed to lower the risk of future cylinder extrusion/displacement. We also share a rare case of a retained rear tip during device explanation. Methods Our video demonstrates our standard technique of obtaining corporal exposure, performing distal corporotomies to explant the cylinders, and utilizing long-acting sutures to prevent future device extrusion. We also demonstrate an encounter with a retained rear tip and our management approach in that scenario. Results Our video successfully demonstrates our intraoperative techniques and surgical approach during IPP revision procedures. It also highlights our experience with postoperative cylinder extrusion from 2017-2021. Conclusions Our surgical approach during IPP revision using distal corporotomies and long-acting absorbable sutures for corporotomy closure aims to reduce the risk of potential cylinder extrusion. The technique was developed based on our own experience with this complication. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Dr. Kohler is a consultant for Coloplast

Chronic pain associated with penile prostheses may persist despite revision or explantation.

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is the gold standard treatment for medically refractory erectile dysfunction. New chronic pain after IPP implantation is rarely discussed and the optimal treatment is unclear. We evaluated whether IPP re-operation for a primary indication of chronic pain improves patients' symptoms. Our secondary aim was to explore factors associated with resolution or persistence of pain after IPP reoperation. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 315 patients who had an IPP revision or explantation at two high-volume prosthetic centers between May 2007 and May 2017. We excluded patients who had device malfunction, pain for <2 months, pain associated with infection or erosion, and patients without long-term followup data. Persistent pain was diagnosed based on patient self-report. A total of 31 patients met our criteria for having undergone a surgical revision (n=18) or explantation (n=13) for pain relief. Eighteen (58%) patients had persistent pain despite surgical intervention. Only patients who had pain secondary to a device malposition improved after re-operation (n=13). A prior diagnosis of a chronic pain syndrome was associated with persistent pain despite intervention. Pain improvement was not associated with age, comorbid conditions, duration of implant, or the number of surgical revisions performed. Surgical intervention for chronic penile prosthesis pain is unlikely to relieve symptoms, particularly for patients with chronic pain disorders. Patients should be counselled that IPP reoperative procedures as a treatment for pain should be avoided unless the device is identified to be malpositioned, and consideration of alternative therapeutic options may be more beneficial.

Revision Surgery for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP): A Single-Center Experience and Pictorial Representation

ObjectiveTo elucidate factors influencing Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP) revision and describe outcomes associated with revision surgery. MethodsA single surgeon, retrospective review of all patients who underwent IPP revision between 2008-2016, was performed. Patient age, BMI, operative duration, blood loss, hospital duration, time from most recent penile implant to revision surgery, etiology of revision, and whether the patient had a prior failed revision surgery were all collected and analyzed. ResultsA total of 57 patients, who had undergone IPP revision between the years 2008-2016, with at least 3 years of follow-up, were included in the investigation. Mean patient age and BMI were 68 and 29.2 kg/m2, respectively. The mean time between the most recent implant operation to revision was 8.4 years. Four patients (7%) reported IPP revision failure within a 3-year follow-up period. ConclusionIPP revision demonstrates a relatively high success rate, in the short term, and should be offered to patients as a safe and effective option.

302 Outcomes Related to Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Removal: A Multi-institutional Experience

Removal of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoir deep in the space of retzius (SOR) or alternate/ectopic space (AES) can be difficult, even for the experienced surgeon. The purpose of this study was to look at outcomes and complications related to reservoir removal during revision or explant surgery. We retrospectively reviewed databases of 3-piece IPP revision and removal surgeries from 7 high-volume prosthetic surgeons at 6 institutions from January 2011 to December 2018. Concurrent urinary sphincter, sling or Mini-jupette placement were excluded. Outcomes and complications related to IPP reservoirs during revision and removal surgery were analyzed. A total of 171 revisions and 44 explants (215 total cases included) were performed of which 172 reservoirs (80%) were in the SOR and 43 (20%) in an AES. Thirty-five cases were secondary to infection (16.3%), 49 (22.8%) had malposition and 131 (60.9%) were due to malfunction. There were 44 cases (20.5%) during which the reservoir was retained. Reasons for retaining reservoirs included difficult dissection (9.1%), avoid injuring surrounding structures (18.2%), reuse of the reservoir for a new IPP (59.1%), and unspecified (13.6%). Reservoir-related postoperative complications included a delayed infection (n=1) of a retained AES reservoir that developed a cutaneous fistula 4 years after revision surgery. Among removed reservoirs (N=171), 15 (8.8%) required a counter-incision. Reservoir-related intraoperative complications included a bladder perforation (N=1) in the SOR group, and an avulsion of the epigastric vessels requiring abdominal exploration (N=1) in the AES group.

045 Combined Urethral Surgery at Time of Penile Prosthesis Implantation does not Increase Risk of Device Infection

Urethral surgery for stricture disease or urethral trauma sustained at the time of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is thought to significantly increase rates of device infection. The classic teaching requires procedure abortion, urethral repair and a future, delayed IPP implantation. We report our experience with patients who had urethral surgery at the time of IPP implantation in order to further elucidate potential risk factors associated with device complications. Consecutive records of patients who underwent IPP implantation at our institution between May 2007 and March 2017 were queried retrospectively. Medical records of patients with a history of urethral surgery at the time of IPP implantation were evaluated. Patient demographics, pre-operative workup, intra-operative maneuvers and post-operative follow-up data were analyzed with use of standard statistics. Records of thirteen men were identified. Average patient age was 63.9 years (range: 40-81yo), and 11 of men (84.6%) were Caucasian. Two men who sustained intra-operative urethral injuries underwent complex repairs with suprapubic tube (SPT) placement. The remaining eleven men had stricture disease and required either stricture dilation, incision or urethroplasty. IPP revision (explantation/ implantation) was performed in two of the men undergoing urethral dilation for stricture disease. There were no device infections or erosions. (Table 1)

Proximal corporal reconstruction: adjunct of penile prosthesis revision surgery.

Proximal corporal deformities may account for failed inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery. No contemporary series has focused solely on describing the natural history and management of isolated proximal corporal deformities in patients after IPP surgery. The aim of the current report is to present the clinical courses and surgical management with outcomes of proximal corporal deformities in the context of prior IPP implantation surgery. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Johns Hopkins Hospital institutional database of IPP surgeries from May 2006 to March 2017 consisted of 198 patients who had undergone IPP revisions. All cases involving surgical revisions associated with isolated proximal corporal deformities (proximally from the penoscrotal junction) were identified. Data retrieved included clinical characteristics, operative findings, and surgical outcomes. Main outcome measures are the ability to achieve successful sexual intercourse after IPP revision. The findings of proximal corporal deformities were manifest in fifteen patients who had undergone previous IPP surgery. Deformities consisted of corporal dilatation (15 patients) and corporal rupture (8 patients). Associated prosthesis defects were mechanical failure (2 patients), aneurysmal dilatation (5 patients), and device breakage (4 patients). Median IPP treatment duration was 14 years. Mean number of prior IPP surgeries were 4.2 times. All patients underwent reduction corporoplasty with IPP device replacements consisting of controlled expansion devices. Mean age at revision was 59.7 years. All patients reported successful sexual intercourse and satisfaction within 6 months' follow-up after surgical revision. Proximal corporal deformities arising after IPP surgery are associated with dysfunctional device operation and as well as device defects. Proper recognition of this problem allows the opportunity for surgical correction with a definitive reduction corporoplasty. Failure to recognize these abnormalities timely may predispose to unsuccessful revisions and complicate future definitive surgical repair.

Infection risk of undergoing multiple penile prostheses: an analysis of referred patient surgical histories.

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard for medically refractory erectile dysfunction. Infectious complications remain a significant concern in IPP revision surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of number of IPP surgeries on subsequent infection rates. A retrospective analysis was performed on all new patients (self or outside provider referred) presenting for consideration of IPP revision or salvage surgery between 2013 and 2015. Histories were reviewed including number of prior IPPs, reason for evaluation, and rate, number, and timing of prior IPP infections. No patients were operated on by the primary investigator prior to data acquisition. We identified 44 patients with at least one prior IPP presenting for consultation regarding IPP revision/salvage. There were 88 IPPs placed by 28 different surgeons. In patients with two or more devices, 55% had at least two different surgeons. The most common reason for presentation was malfunction (52%). The risk of specific device infection was strongly correlated and increased based on number of prior IPPs: 1st (6.8%; 3/44), 2nd (18.2%; 4/22), 3rd (33.3%; 4/12), 4th (50%; 4/8), and 5th (100%; 2/2) (R2 = 0.90, p = 0.01). Similarly, overall rates of infection positively correlated with number of prior IPP-related surgeries performed (R2 = 0.97, p < 0.01). The median time to development of infection after most recent IPP surgery was 2 months (IQR 1-3.3 months). Infection rates of revision/salvage IPP surgery increase with each subsequent IPP placement or following IPP-related surgeries. The majority of patients referred for penile implant surgery can expect to have experienced at least one infection by their 4th device. These data represent a change in paradigm on revision prosthetic surgery.