Outcomes of Alternative Reservoir Placement in the Lateral Retroperitoneum During Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement

The 51-60 cm H2O Artificial Urinary Sphincter Pressure Regulating Balloon: Indications and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To describe the role and long-term outcomes of using the 51-60cm H2O pressure regulating balloon (PRB) in male patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS).

METHODS

From 2005-2021, 90 patients with a variety of urethral risk factors underwent AUS placement with use of the low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB to treat stress incontinence. Patient demographics, indication for use of the 51-60 cm H2O PRB, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were examined and Pearson's chi squared test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to identify associations with future revisions, erosion, and mechanical failure.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were included in the study. After median follow-up of 46.6months (range: 6-146months), 4 (4.44%) patients developed an erosion-related complication that required device removal, 4 developed an infection, and 3 underwent surgery for pump relocation. One patient had a reported mechanical failure of unknown source. Thirty patients underwent revision surgery to reduce incontinence. Of the 4 patients with erosion, 1 was due to iatrogenic catheterization. The remaining 3 had numerous urethral risk factors. Univariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of cuff erosion, infection, and revision in patients with a 51-60 cm H2O PRB. No significant associations were found including prior pelvic radiation, age at AUS placement, presence of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), prior AUS erosion, or previous urethroplasty.

CONCLUSION

The low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB can be used in high-risk male patients with urinary incontinence with low rates of complications including erosion, infection, and mechanical failure. While patients may choose to undergo future revisional surgery to improve continence, the 51-60 cm H2O PRB should be considered as the initial PRB in patients with urethral risk factors.

Immediate and Long-term Outcomes of Lateral Retroperitoneal Pressure Regulating Balloon Placement During Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation

OBJECTIVE

To describe immediate and long-term outcomes of pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement, exchange, and extraction from the lateral retroperitoneum (LR) in male patients receiving an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent primary AUS placement between 2006 and 2021. All patients had the PRB placed in the LR during the study period. Intraoperative complications during PRB placement, exchange, or removal, and indications for PRB revision, such as infection, erosion, or mechanical failures were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-one patients were included in the study. All patients underwent primary implantation with no intraoperative complications including no incidents of bowel or vascular injury during PRB placement. In addition, there were no instances of intraoperative injury during PRB removal (with or without PRB replacement). After mean follow-up of 54.8months (range: 1-181months), 9 patients (1.7%) developed a reservoir-specific complication with infection (5 patients, 0.9%) being the most common issue found. The second most common type or reservoir issue was a palpable or herniated reservoir. There were 2 patients (0.4%) who herniated their reservoirs and one patient with a nonbothersome, but palpable reservoir. Lastly, there were 2 incidents (0.4%) of mechanical failure caused by a leak in the PRB.

CONCLUSION

Due to the ease and safety of placing and removing PRBs from this location and exceedingly low rates of PRB-related complications in long-term follow-up, the LR should be considered as an ideal location for PRB placement in male patients receiving an AUS.

Increasing role of counterincision for high submuscular penile prosthesis reservoir placement

Background

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoir placement into the high submuscular (HSM) space is safe and well tolerated. Recent studies have proposed that reservoirs placed via an abdominal counterincision (CI) may offer more precise and durable positioning as compared with a transinguinal (TI) approach.

Aim

Herein we compare the CI-HSM and TI-HSM techniques with respect to operative time, pain control, and postoperative complications.

Methods

We reviewed our penile prosthesis database at a large single-surgeon tertiary referral center from 2014 to 2021 to compare those who underwent virgin reservoir placement via the CI-HSM technique vs the TI-HSM technique. Statistical analysis was performed with the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi-square test and Fisher exact test for discrete variables.

Outcomes

Operative time, postoperative complications, morphine milligram equivalents prescribed, and postoperative correspondence were compared between patients undergoing the CI-HSM and TI-HSM techniques.

Results

Among 456 virgin IPP implants, the CI-HSM technique was used in 34 cases (7.5%) and the TI-HSM technique in 422 cases (92.5%). Of these 456 cases, 92 (20.2%) were combined with ancillary procedures such as artificial urinary sphincter, urethral sling, or penile plication (6/34, CI; 86/422, TI). Cases employing the CI-HSM technique had a 19.9% greater median operative time: 81.5 minutes (IQR, 69.3-106.5) vs 68 minutes (IQR, 57.8-80.3; P < .01). A similar proportion of patients in the CI-HSM group (2/34, 5.9%) were treated for infection as in the TI-HSM group (17/422, 4.0%; P = .64). Reservoir herniation was seen in 12 patients in the TI-HSM group (2.8%) and in none of the CI-HSM group, but this did not reach significance (P > .99). No differences were identified between patients in the TI-HSM and CI-HSM groups with regard to postoperative morphine milligram equivalents prescribed, narcotic medication refills, or postoperative correspondence.

Clinical Implications

CI-HSM reservoir placement was associated with similar surgical outcomes to TI-HSM without increased infection risk or need for narcotic pain management.

Strengths and Limitations

Although this study is a large contemporary series addressing a clinically important subject, it is limited by its retrospective preliminary nature and nonrandomized unmatched design. Patient pain regimens were assessed via discharge prescriptions, although data regarding narcotic consumption were not available in the medical record.

Conclusions

IPP reservoir placement via the CI-HSM technique is safe and well tolerated. Increased operative time of the CI-HSM technique as compared with the TI-HSM technique is clinically negligible given its potential safety benefits of direct visualization of reservoir placement.

Midline submuscular penile prosthesis reservoir placement for patients with bilateral inaccessible inguinal rings: technique and outcomes

Introduction

One of the most challenging aspects of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery is reservoir placement. The traditional space of Retzius (SOR) is not suitable for all patients. For example, radical cystectomy or prostatectomy may alter the anatomical SOR. Hence, traditional placement of the reservoir in this space increases the risk of bowel or vascular injury. Also, patients with bilateral inguinal hernias repaired with mesh, or those with previous reservoirs that have been retained, are not eligible for a Retzius reservoir. Our study reports on the use of midline sub-rectus muscle placement of a penile prosthesis reservoir in these patients as an alternative to high submuscular placement commonly used.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of male patients who underwent IPP surgery between June 2017 and 2021 was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups based on the location of the reservoir: SOR versus Midline Submuscular Reservoir (MSMR). Complication rates were compared, including herniated reservoirs, infections, bowel injuries, and vascular injuries.

Results

Our cohort included 461 patients who underwent IPP surgery between June 2017 and 2021 in one tertiary center. SOR was used in 89% of patients and MSMR in 11% of patients (n = 413 and 48, respectively). Median follow-up for all patients was 28 months. The mean age was 67 ± 8 years. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding age or comorbidities (BMI, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and coronary artery disease). The complication rate was low in both the SOR and MSMR groups, with device malfunction being the most common (2% versus 4%, respectively; p = 0.32). The infection rate was 0.5% in the SOR group with no infections in the MSMR group (NS). There was only one case of herniation requiring surgical revision in the SOR group and no cases of bowel or vascular injury.

Conclusion

Placement of a penile prosthesis reservoir within a midline rectus submuscular space is a safe and effective technique when the SOR is compromised by previous surgery or bilateral inguinal canals are not accessible.

Radiographic Assessment of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Location Variability in Contemporary Practice

BACKGROUND

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs are typically placed into the Space of Retzius (SOR) or alternative locations including the High Submuscular (HSM) space via transinguinal (TI) or counter incision (CI) techniques. A cadaver study showed variability in reservoir location after TI-HSM placement.

AIM

To evaluate reservoir location using cross-sectional imaging following IPP insertion.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database and identified men who underwent virgin penoscrotal IPP insertion between 2007 and 2019. We then identified those men who subsequently underwent cross-sectional imaging prior to October 2019. Radiologists evaluated cross-sectional imaging in a blinded manner and categorized reservoir locations as follows: 1) submuscular; 2) posterior to the external oblique fascia and lateral to the rectus abdominis musculature; 3) preperitoneal; 4) retroperitoneal; 5) intraperitoneal; 6) inguinal canal; 7) subcutaneous. Patients were stratified by reservoir placement technique, transinguinal space of Retzius (TI-SOR), transinguinal high submuscular (TI-HSM), or counterincision high submuscular (CI-HSM). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were reviewed and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests.

OUTCOMES

Variability exists in the TI placement of SOR and HSM reservoirs, CI-HSM reservoirs were associated with a low level of variability.

RESULTS

Among 561 men who underwent virgin IPP insertion during the 12-year study period, 114 had postoperative cross-sectional imaging (29 TI-SOR, 80 TI-HSM, and 5 CI-HSM). Among the 114 patients imaged, TI-HSM reservoirs were more likely than TI-SOR to be located anterior to the transversalis fascia (48 vs 14%, P < .01) and were less likely to be located in the preperitoneal space (18 vs 62%, P < .01). Rates of intraperitoneal reservoir location were similar between the TI-HSM and TI-SOR groups (5 vs 7%, P = .66). Among imaged CI-HSM reservoirs, 4 (80%) were anterior to the transversalis fascia and 1 (20%) was within the inguinal canal. Among all 536 transinguinal cases (131 TI-SOR and 405 TI-HSM), rates of reservoir-related complications requiring operative intervention were similar between groups (5 vs 2%, P = .24). No complications were noted among the 25 patients in the CI-HSM cohort.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The level of variability seen in this study did not seem to impact patient safety, complications were rare in all cohorts.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

This study is the first and largest of its kind in evaluating reservoir positioning in live patients with long-term follow-up. This study is limited in its retrospective and nonrandomized nature.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite variability with both TI-HSM and TI-SOR techniques, reservoir related complications remain rare. Kavoussi M, Cook G, Nordeck S, et al. Radiographic Assessment of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Location Variability in Contemporary Practice. J Sex Med 2021;XX:XXX-XXX.

Penile implant surgery-managing complications

Penile prosthesis surgery represents the end-stage treatment for erectile dysfunction. It is conventionally used only in cases of erectile dysfunction refractory to pharmacological treatments or vacuum constriction devices. Contemporary literature suggests that penile prothesis surgery is associated with a high satisfaction rate and a low complication profile. However, it must be appreciated that the complications of surgery can have devastating consequences on a patient’s quality of life and satisfaction and include infection, prosthesis malfunction, penile corporal perforation and penile length loss. Several factors – such as appropriate patient selection, methodical preoperative assessment and patient optimization, specific intraoperative protocols and postoperative recommendations – can reduce the risk of surgical complications. This narrative review discusses the diagnosis and management of both intraoperative and postoperative complications of penile prosthesis surgery.