Dilemmas of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Revision Surgery: What Practices Achieve the Best Outcomes and the Lowest Infection Rates? (CME)

Complications and troubleshooting in primary penile prosthetic surgery-a review

Penile implant surgery is the gold standard to treat erectile dysfunction with success rates of over 90%. The first penile implants were developed in the early 1900s. Since then, several types of implants have been developed including malleable implants, two-piece inflatable implants, and three-piece inflatable implants. The three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis, which was introduced in 1973, is the most widely used type of penile implant in the United States. Penile implant surgery has undergone numerous advancements over the years, improving outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, as with any surgical procedure, there are risks and complications associated with penile implant surgery. It is important for surgeons to understand these potential complications and to have strategies in place to manage and prevent them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their patients.

Penile implants in low flow priapism

Priapism is a persistent or prolonged erection, in the absence of sexual stimulation, that fails to subside. Prolonged ischaemic or low flow priapism is defined as a full or partial erection persisting for more than 4 h and unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation, characterised by little or no cavernous blood flow. Low flow priapism leads to progressive corporal fibrosis, which could, in turn, lead to long-lasting erectile dysfunction if left untreated. Penile prosthesis implantation is recognised as a management option in refractory and delayed low flow priapism for restoring erectile function with high patient satisfaction rates. However, the ensuing corporal fibrotic scarring poses a surgical challenge to clinicians, given the higher complication rates in this patient subset. Postoperative patient satisfaction has been closely linked to preoperative expectations and perceived loss of penile length. Therefore, thorough patient counselling concerning the risk and benefits of penile implants should be a priority for all clinicians. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus on the ideal prosthesis choice and procedural timing in refractory low flow priapism. In this review, we will examine the existing literature on penile implants in patients with priapism and discuss the options for managing complications associated with penile prosthesis surgery.

The International Penile Prosthesis Implant Consensus Forum: clinical recommendations and surgical principles on the inflatable 3-piece penile prosthesis implant

Despite significant scientific advances in the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implant surgery, it is not without surgical risks and can carry additional cosmetic and psychosocial consequences in poorly selected and consented individuals. To address this problem, an international group of key opinion leaders and high-volume prosthetic surgeons reviewed the current guidelines and clinical evidence, discussed their experiences, and formed a consensus regarding inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. The findings of this consensus panel were presented at the 17th biennial Asia Pacific Society of Sexual Medicine scientific meeting. The experts concluded that proper patient selection, informed consent and strict adherence to safe surgical principles are important to optimize clinical outcomes. Furthermore, most intraoperative complications, if recognized, can be addressed intraoperatively to enable placement of the device at the time of initial surgery. Men with significant corporal fibrosis due to Peyronie's disease, prior prosthesis explantation and priapism, and men who have undergone construction of a neophallus, as well as men who receive concurrent continence surgery, are complex cases requiring additional care and advanced techniques to obtain optimal surgical outcomes. Variability in patient care - in terms of postoperative antibiotic use, pain management, scrotal care, and cycling of the penile prosthesis implant - must be reduced to enable optimization and assessment of outcomes across patient groups.

Penile implant infection factors: a contemporary narrative review of literature

Objective

We aim to review and summarize published literature that features implanted penile devices and details infection of these devices as a complication. In particular, we will detail the factors that influence infection of penile implants.

Background

Types of penile prostheses (PP) include inflatable implants and semirigid implants; these are utilized for treatment of erectile dysfunction. Likely the most feared complication of penile implants is infection. There are a handful of factors that are implicated in device infection.

Methods

Searches were performed using MEDLINE and PubMed databases using keywords and phrases ‘penile implant AND infection’; ‘penile prosthesis AND infection’; ‘penile implant infection’. We have presented results from our literature search. We divided these into ‘Surgical Elements’ and ‘Patient Selection and Factors.’ Each topic is discussed in its own section.

Conclusions

Strides have been made since the initial penile prosthesis (IPP) surgeries to improve infection rates including diabetes control, antibiotic coating of devices, and antibiotic implementation. Going forward, more studies, especially randomized control trials, need to focus on defining levels of diabetic control (sugar control and A1C control), determining the role of metabolic syndrome in infection promotion and determining laboratory values which could be predictive of infection. We present a discussion of important factors to consider in the realm of PP infections. In addition, we include studies which discuss topics for future directions in decreasing the number of infections seen with PP.

Risk factors for tissue expander infection in scar reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study of 2374 consecutive cases

Background

Tissue expansion is used for scar reconstruction owing to its excellent clinical outcomes; however, the complications that emerge from tissue expansion hinder repair. Infection is considered a major complication of tissue expansion. This study aimed to analyze the perioperative risk factors for expander infection.

Methods

A large, retrospective, single-institution observational study was carried out over a 10-year period. The study enrolled consecutive patients who had undergone tissue expansion for scar reconstruction. Demographics, etiological data, expander-related characteristics and postoperative infection were assessed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify risk factors for expander infection. In addition, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for treatment failure caused by infection as an outcome.

Results

A total of 2374 expanders and 148 cases of expander infection were assessed. Treatment failure caused by infection occurred in 14 expanders. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that disease duration of ≤1 year (odds ratio (OR), 2.07; p < 0.001), larger volume of expander (200–400 ml vs <200 ml; OR, 1.74; p = 0.032; >400 ml vs <200 ml; OR, 1.76; p = 0.049), limb location (OR, 2.22; p = 0.023) and hematoma evacuation (OR, 2.17; p = 0.049) were associated with a high likelihood of expander infection. Disease duration of ≤1 year (OR, 3.88; p = 0.015) and hematoma evacuation (OR, 10.35; p = 0.001) were so related to high risk of treatment failure.

Conclusions

The rate of expander infection in patients undergoing scar reconstruction was 6.2%. Disease duration of <1 year, expander volume of >200 ml, limb location and postoperative hematoma evacuation were independent risk factors for expander infection.

Updates in penile prosthesis infections

Inflatable penile prostheses are an important tool in the treatment of medically refractory erectile dysfunction. One of the major complications associated with these prostheses is infections, which ultimately require device explanation and placement of a new device. Over the past several decades, significant work has been done to reduce infection rates and optimize treatment strategies to reduce patient morbidity. This article reviews the current state of knowledge surrounding penile prosthesis infections, with attention to the evidence for methods to prevent infection and best practices for device reimplantation.

Minimizing Penile Prosthesis Implant Infection: What Can We Learn From Orthopedic Surgery?

The implantation of penile protheses for the surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction has risen in popularity over the past several decades. Considerable advances have been made in surgical protocol and device design, specifically targeting infection prevention. Despite these efforts, device infection remains a critical problem, which causes significant physical and emotional burden to the patient. The aim of this review is to broaden the discussion of best practices by not only examining practices in urology, but additionally delving into the field of orthopedic surgery to identify techniques and approaches that may be applied to penile prothesis surgery.

Comparing Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes in Virgin Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantations and Revisions: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies place the risk of infection following inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation at 1-2%. This risk may be underestimated due to the exclusion of high-risk patients, such as patients undergoing multiple revisions or revision following IPP infection, from data.

AIM

To calculate the rate of postoperative complications for all patients undergoing IPP implantation and revision, and to determine the risk factors predictive of complications following virgin implantation and revision independently.

METHODS

The charts of 280 patients undergoing 331 IPP implantations performed over the last 20 years at a large academic medical center were reviewed for postoperative complications and suspected preoperative and operative risk factors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

This included the prevalence of adverse operative outcomes including postoperative infection and device malfunction.

RESULTS

63 (20.7%) surgeries resulted in postoperative complications: 38 (12.5%) resulting in device malfunction and 25 (8.20%) resulting in infection. Smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 4.14, P = .00) was associated with overall postoperative complications. Within subgroups, concomitant procedures (OR = 4.77, P = .03) were associated with infection for those undergoing virgin implantation, but not those undergoing revision procedures. Alternatively, diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR = 28.3, P = .02) was associated with postoperative infection for those undergoing revision procedures, but not those undergoing virgin implantation.

CONCLUSION

The rate of postoperative infection for all patients undergoing IPP was found to be 8.20%, a higher estimate than historically recorded. To varying degrees, smoking, concomitant procedures, and DM were associated with adverse operative outcomes. Subset analyses revealed significant associations between postoperative infections and either concomitant procedures or DM in those undergoing virgin implantations or revision surgeries, respectively. Miller JA, Bennett NE. Comparing Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes in Virgin Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantations and Revisions: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J Sex Med 2020;8:388-395.

Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction

Penile prosthesis implant surgery is an effective management approach for a number of urological conditions, including medication refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). Complications encountered post-operatively include infection, bleeding/hematoma, and device malfunction. Since the 1970s, modifications to these devices have reduced complication rates through improvement in antisepsis and design using antibiotic coatings, kink-resistant tubing, lock-out valves to prevent autoinflation, and modified reservoir shapes. Device survival and complication rates have been investigated predominately by retrospective database-derived studies. This review article focuses on the identification and management of post-operative complications following penile prosthetic and implant surgery. Etiology for ED, surgical technique, and prosthesis type are variable among studies. The most common post-operative complications of infection, bleeding, and device malfunction may be minimized by adherence to consistent technique and standard protocol. Novel antibiotic coatings and standard antibiotic regimen may reduce infection rates. Meticulous hemostasis and intraoperative testing of devices may further reduce need for revision surgery. Additional prospective studies with consistent reporting of outcomes and comparison of surgical approach and prosthesis type in patients with variable ED etiology would be beneficial.

Minimising the risk of device infection in penile prosthetic surgery: a UK perspective

We have reviewed articles published on penile prosthetic infection in Medline and EMBASE databases from 2000 to 2012 with the intention of signposting ‘best evidence’ for the UK prosthetic implanter. Using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (LE), no paper exceeded an LE of 2b and the majority were LE 4 (case series) and LE 5 (expert opinion). This is not surprising from a UK perspective since HES data for 2009 to 2010 reported 263 penile prosthetic surgeries performed in 35 hospitals, with only five hospitals performing 15 or more. Our literature review suggests that the use of antibiotic-coated IPPs and measures aimed at reducing inoculating bacteria into the surgical wound with alcohol skin preparation, a no-touch technique and peri-operative antibiotic use are most important in minimising the risk of device infection. The use of post-operative antibiotics is contentious (LE 5). It remains unproven whether diabetics have a higher rate of prosthetic infection compared to nondiabetics. In cases of re-implantation for mechanical failure, it remains debatable whether a washout technique should be used and indeed uncertainty remains regarding the pathological role of biofilm in the causation of device infection in this scenario. A washout technique during salvage penile prosthetic surgery for device infection is advocated. Further research on biofilm may offer the best chance of reducing the incidence of device infections overall.

History, Contemporary Outcomes, and Future of Penile Prostheses: A Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Since their introduction, penile prostheses have consistently remained a superior treatment option for men with erectile dysfunction (ED) refractory to conservative measures. Ongoing enhancements to prosthetic design, materials, and surgical techniques have resulted in improved outcomes.

AIM

To review available literature on notable historical advancements and improvements of the penile prosthesis, summarize contemporary outcomes of recent devices, and discuss possible future directions of the penile prosthesis.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed of all articles published from 1960 to present relating to penile prosthesis. Priority was given to series with 12 months of follow-up or greater, larger series, and studies reporting on outcomes of more recent prosthetic models.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Main outcomes included historical review of improvements leading to, and contemporary series reporting on rates of mechanical failures, infections, and satisfaction with penile prostheses.

RESULTS

Penile prostheses have undergone numerous enhancements since initial reports of synthetic materials utilized in the 1950s. Among others, recent notable device enhancements include Parylene coating, Bioflex® material, Inhibizone^TM antibacterial impregnation, hydrophilic coating, lockout valves, and easy release pump mechanisms, all of which have improved mechanical reliability, reduced infection rates, and/or improved patient satisfaction with penile prostheses. Contemporary series of 3-piece penile prostheses report mechanical survival of 81-94%, 68-89%, and 57-76% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Infection rates of current devices are 1-2% in first-time, low-risk populations, and 2-3% for higher risk groups, with patient and partner satisfaction at 92-100% and 91-95%, respectively. Two-piece and malleable devices are associated with slightly higher mechanical reliability and decreased patient satisfaction. Minimal data currently exist on the outcomes of selected patient populations, including Peyronie's disease and corporal fibrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Penile prostheses are associated with excellent, long-term outcomes and remain the gold-standard treatment for men with refractory ED. Additional research with prospective studies utilizing objective measures and standardized questionnaires is required. Trost L and Hellstrom WJG. History, contemporary outcomes, and future of penile prostheses: A review of the literature. Sex Med Rev 2013;1:150-163.

National trends in the treatment of penile prosthesis infections by explantation alone vs. immediate salvage and reimplantation

INTRODUCTION

A penile prosthesis infection (PPI) is either treated with explantation of the prosthesis with a possible delayed reimplantation or a salvage procedure with an immediate reimplantation of the prosthesis.

AIM

We used a large, all-payer national database to investigate the use of the salvage procedure in the setting of PPI.

METHODS

The study used years 2000-2009 of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to identify PPIs treated with immediate salvage or explantation alone. Admissions were then stratified by various parameters to compare differences in the salvage rates.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Salvage Rate of Penile Prosthesis infection.

RESULTS

A total of 1,557 patients were treated with an explantation only (82.7%) or salvage (17.3%) for PPI, a proportion that remained stable over the study period. The patients treated with salvage were younger (60.4 vs. 65.1 years), more likely to be discharged home (87.3% vs. 61.9%), and were less likely to have a severe presentation (7.2% vs. 31.6%) than those who were explanted only (P < 0.001). These factors were confirmed on multivariate regression analysis. The regression also revealed that treatment at rural hospitals had lower odds of salvage than treatment at urban teaching hospitals. Race, comorbid diabetes, and insurance status did not independently affect the salvage rate. There was no significant difference in total hospital charges between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage rates have remained low over the past decade. Our study elucidated several factors decreasing the chances of salvage after PPI including age, severity of presentation, and hospital setting.

Shortened penis post penile prosthesis implantation treated with subcutaneous soft silicone penile implant: case report

Penile prosthesis surgery for erectile dysfunction has the highest satisfaction rates among all treatment options but is often associated with subjective and objective loss of penile length and girth following surgery. To present a novel technique using a subcutaneous soft silicone implant for reversal of penile shortening and narrowing after prosthesis surgery, with additional gains in overall penile length and girth. Nine patients were treated with the insertion of a subcutaneous soft silicone penile implant. All patients had previously reported a loss in penile length (0.5-2 cm), and seven of nine patients also reported a loss in penile girth (0.5-2.6 cm) after penile prosthesis surgery. During a follow-up period of 4-24 months, penile length and girth measurements showed a mean increase in length of 2.4 cm (±0.75 cm) and a mean increase in girth of 3.4 cm (±0.94 cm). The additional insertion of a subcutaneous soft silicone implant in patients with decreased penile length and girth after penile prosthesis surgery is an effective treatment option that provides reversal of lost penile length and girth.

Outcomes of abdominal wall reservoir placement in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a safe and efficacious alternative to the space of Retzius

INTRODUCTION

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery is a successful therapeutic option for men with erectile dysfunction. Traditional placement of the reservoir in the retropubic space of Retzius is associated with the rare occurrence of significant complications including bladder, bowel, and vascular injury. An alternative site, posterior to the abdominal wall musculature, has been identified as a potentially safer location for reservoir placement.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe our technique of abdominal reservoir placement during infrapubic IPP surgery and present our outcomes data.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our experience with abdominal reservoir placement during virgin IPP cases. Reservoirs placed anterior and posterior to transversalis fascia were analyzed separately.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measures was assessment of reservoir-related complications including palpable reservoir, reservoir herniation, and injuries to bowel, bladder, or major blood vessels.

RESULTS

There were no injuries to bowel or major blood vessels with abdominal reservoir placement posterior or anterior to the transversalis fascia in properly segregated patients.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal reservoir placement is a safe and simple surgical method that can be recommended for most men undergoing IPP placement. Men with a history of pelvic surgery can have the reservoir placed between the rectus abdominis musculature and transversalis fascia, while other men can have the reservoir placed between transversalis fascia and peritoneum in order to avoid a palpable reservoir. By applying this protocol, the catastrophic injuries that occur rarely with retropubic reservoir placement can be reliably avoided.

Complications associated with retained foreign bodies from infected penile implants: proposal for the use of an implant-specific checklist at the time of device removal

INTRODUCTION

Infection of a penile prosthesis requires that all device hardware and associated foreign materials are removed, irrespective of whether a salvage procedure will be performed. Failure to remove all foreign bodies from the operative field may result in persistent infection, necessitating surgical intervention.

AIM

To review our experience with complications arising from retained foreign bodies following removal of an infected penile prosthesis. We highlight the clinical features that should raise suspicion of retained device-associated materials, and also the role of imaging in evaluating these patients. Finally, a rational approach to prevent these occurrences is proposed with the implementation of an implant-specific checklist.

METHODS

Medical records and imaging studies of patients presenting to our center with retained foreign bodies following removal of an infected penile prosthesis were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical and radiologic details of each of these cases were abstracted, including patient demographics, presenting symptoms, characteristics of retained materials, bacterial cultures, treatment, and follow-up.

RESULTS

Presenting symptoms included: (i) persistent and relapsing drainage from cutaneous fistulae; (ii) cellulitis overlying an infected reservoir; (iii) persistent penile pain; and (iv) an asymptomatic individual requesting elective placement of a second implant. Infected foreign materials retrieved included: two rear-tip extenders, a tubing connector, two infected reservoirs, and nonabsorbable mesh. Preoperative computerized tomography scan confirmed the presence and the location of all of these materials. Using this data, we propose using an implant-specific checklist to insure removal of all device-related foreign bodies when explanting an infected penile prosthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of adverse sequelae may result from inadvertently leaving behind device-related materials when an infected implant is removed. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the surgeon removing an infected implant to insure that all device components and associated materials are removed. We believe that implementing a two-step implant-specific checklist is a rational prevention strategy.