The modern testicular prosthesis: patient selection and counseling, surgical technique, and outcomes

Short-term revision rate of Rigicon Testi10TM testicular prosthesis in adolescents and adults: a retrospective chart review

Testicular prosthesis implantation is a valuable solution for the physical, cosmetic, and psychological challenges associated with testicular loss which may affect males of any age. We evaluated the safety and reliability of the new Rigicon Testi10TM testicular prosthesis in adults and adolescents by performing an IRB-approved retrospective study of data drawn from Patient Information Forms (PIFs). A total of 427 patients (382 adults and 45 adolescents) had at least one testicular prosthesis implanted. Only one adult patient required revision surgery due to rupture of the Rigicon Testi10 TM saline-filled prosthesis. A 40-year-old patient was found to have a leaking prosthesis approximately one week postoperatively, which was suspected to be due to inadvertently punctured by the surgeon during the sterile saline filling process. There were no post-implantation revisions required for adolescent patients. According to our results, Kaplan-Meier calculation of survival from removal or revision was 99.8% for all patients at 54 months (99.7% for adults and 100% for adolescents). The complication rates among patients in this study are lower than those reported in previous published studies. Our study underscores the generally safe nature of testicular prosthesis implantation, as well as the very rare incidence of revision surgery for this new device.

Current attitudes to testicular prosthesis insertion during radical orchidectomy-An international perspective

Objectives

This study aimed to assess current international clinician practices, attitudes and barriers related to testicular prosthesis implantation in patients with testicular cancer at the time of radical inguinal orchidectomy.

Methods

An international online survey of urologists who perform radical orchidectomy for testicular cancer was developed. The recruitment process used social media and the emailing lists of national urological societies. Responses were collected between 10 February 2021 and 31 May 2021. The primary outcome was the proportion of urologists who always offered testicular prosthesis implantation to patients undergoing radical orchidectomy. Secondary outcomes included the reasons for not offering testicular prosthesis implantation.

Results

A total of 393 respondents took part in the online survey; of these, the majority were from the UK (66%), with the remaining international respondents (34%) from six different continents. Urologists (53%) reported they always offer testicular prosthesis implantation. Of those that offered testicular prosthesis implantation, 28% did so as a secondary procedure after radical orchidectomy, rather than the time of radical orchidectomy (72%). The most frequently selected reasons for not offering testicular prosthesis implantation included concerns about delaying chemotherapy (41%), infection (33%), impaired cosmesis (17%) and lack of availability (17%).

Conclusion

Despite evidence confirming the safety and the psychological benefit of testicular prosthesis implantation during radical orchidectomy, current international practice suggests just over half of urologists always offer this to their patients. Increased clinician awareness of the low risk of complications and high patient satisfaction may act to reduce the perceived barriers in offering testicular prosthesis implantation.

Trends in the use of testicular prostheses in Germany: a total population analysis from 2006-2021

INTRODUCTION

Testicular tumors are the most common malignancies in young adults and their incidence is growing. The implantation of a testicular prosthesis, for example, during orchiectomy is a standard procedure but its frequency in Germany is unknown. This study aims to analyze trends of testicular prosthesis implantation in recent years in Germany.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The nationwide German hospital billing database and the German hospital quality reports from 2006 to 2021 were studied.

RESULTS

A total of 12,753 surgical procedures with implantation of testicular prosthesis and 1,244 procedures with testicular prosthesis explantation were included. Testicular prosthesis implantation increased in total from 699 cases in 2006 to 870 cases in 2020 (+11.4 cases/year; p < 0.001). The share of implantation of testicular prosthesis due to testicular tumor decreased from 72.6% in 2006 to 67.5% in 2020 (p < 0.001). The share of implantation due to gender affirming surgery increased from 6.8% in 2006 to 23.3% in 2020 (p < 0.001). The share of implantation due to testicular atrophy decreased from 11.4% in 2006 to 3.4% in 2020 (p < 0.001). Simultaneous implantation of testicular prosthesis during orchiectomy for testicular cancer increased from 7.8% in 2006 to 11.4% in 2020 (p < 0.001). In 2006, 146 hospitals (85%) performed < 5 testicular prosthesis implantation, while 20 hospitals (12%) performed 5-15 implantation procedures and 6 hospitals (3%) performed > 15 testicular implantation surgeries. In 2021, 115 hospitals (72%) performed < 5 testicular prosthesis implantation, while 39 hospitals (25%) performed 5-15 implantation procedures and 5 hospitals (3%) performed > 15 testicular implantation surgeries.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that implantation of testicular prostheses is steadily increasing. Explantation rates are low. Besides testicular cancer transgender surgeries were the main driver for increasing case numbers in recent years.

Effects of stigma on quality of life of cancer survivors: Preliminary evidence from a survivorship programme in Kenya

Globally, cancer is a major public health problem. There is a paucity of information regarding stigma and how it affects the cancer survivors' quality of life (QoL) in Kenya. In a recent report by Globocan, 42,116 new cases and 27,072 fatalities related to cancer were documented in Kenya in 2020. Cancer survivors are more likely to suffer physical and psychological disorders as a result of their poor QoL. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding the stigma associated with the disease as well as how it affects their QoL among a cohort of cancer survivors supported by the KILELE Health Association.

Methods

This research used a cross-sectional design with both quantitative and qualitative methods. The study enrolled 45 cancer survivors from a cohort participating in the KILELE Health Association (KHA) survivors' program. The quantitative data were coded and analyzed using the 26th version of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Utilizing content analysis, qualitative data was thematically evaluated. In accordance with the study's goals and key measures, the generated transcripts were organized into themes and sub-themes.

Results

Participants' mean age was 44.55 ± 9.89 years. Forty-two of the participants completed the survey and were thus included in the analysis. Cancer survivors reported experiencing low levels of stigma across the following dimensions: awkwardness (2.51 ± 0.75), severity (3.22 ± 1.29), financial discrimination (2.77 ± 1.17), personal responsibility (1.9 ± 1.38), avoidance (1.38 ± 0.68), and policy level stigmatization (5.09 ± 1.70). Awareness raising (97.62%), using communication channels (95.24%), advocacy, and lobbying (92.86%) were the most commonly stated strategies to change people's attitudes in terms of interventions to reduce stigma and improve QoL.

Conclusion

Respondents in this study showed low levels of stigma, which may be due to the support they receive from the KILELE Health Association. Strategic steps in advocacy, publicity, and education are required to end stigmatization to promote awareness and pique people's interest in cancer survivorship. Further research with a larger sample size of cancer survivors from various settings is warranted.

Tips and Tricks: Evolution of Orchidectomy

Radical orchidectomy has been the standard surgery for testicular tumours. While a straightforward routine surgery, there are several finer points in the surgical technique and perioperative care that urologists should be familiar with. This mini-review discusses modifications to the conventional surgical approach such as organ-sparing surgery and the subinguinal approach, and practice points regarding prostheses and sperm banking that are pertinent to early management of a patient with a testicular tumour. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the evidence for surgical removal of a testicle for testicular cancer. There are a number of different techniques to minimise the extent of surgery. Surgeons should also discuss sperm banking and options for a testicular prosthesis with their patients.

Testicular prostheses - impact on quality of life and sexual function

Orchiectomy is the recommended treatment for many testicular conditions. However, testicular prosthesis placement is not always performed for different reasons. In this study, we aimed to evaluate patients' opinions and the impact on sexual function and quality of life. This retrospective observational single-center study included patients who underwent orchiectomy between January 2014 and December 2020 at the Department of Urology, Braga's Hospital (Braga, Portugal), where testicular implants were always available and the decision to undergo the procedure was made fully independent of cost. Patients completed four questionnaires that assessed demographic data, satisfaction, self-esteem, and sexual function. Of the 96 patients who underwent orchidectomy, 59 replied to the questionnaires, and of these patients, 86.4% decided to undergo silicone-based testicular prostheses implantation. The remaining 13.6% refused the implant based on concerns about complications (37.5%), because they felt that it was unnecessary (37.5%), or because it was not offered by the doctor (25.0%). Overall, 96.1% of these patients were satisfied with the implant; however, 25.5% classified it as "too firm". No statistically significant differences were found in sexual function (all P > 0.05). However, it can be observed that there are more patients with prostheses presenting normal sexual activity compared to patients without prostheses (74.0% vs 50.0%), and none of them reported severe erectile dysfunction (0 vs 16.7%). Regarding self-esteem, both patients with and without prostheses present very similar average scores with no statistically significant differences. The present study highlights the highest level of satisfaction among patients who received testicular prostheses. Testicular prostheses implantation is a safe procedure that does not hamper sexual function after orchiectomy.

Should You Fix Testicular Prosthesis? A Satisfaction Survey From a Monocentric Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether testicular prosthesis should be fixed.

METHODS

Retrospective monocentric study including 169 patients who had implantation of testicular prosthesis between January 2013 and December 2022. Patients answered a telephone questionnaire regarding prosthesis characteristics and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Prosthesis was sutured for 59 patients (34.9%) out of 169. 146 patients answered the questionnaire. Satisfaction was excellent regarding size, weight, consistency, and shape. A position too high was a major complain in both groups. Pain and discomfort were significantly higher in the fixed group (30.8% vs 9.78%, P < .001). Few patients reported discomfort with the anchor prosthesis (22.9%).

CONCLUSION

Overall satisfaction of the prosthesis is high but discomfort and high positioning are the two items remaining to improve. Our study suggests that fixing prosthesis is a cause of discomfort and won't allow a better positioning.

Intra-scrotal epidermoid cyst rupture misdiagnosed as a testicular prosthesis rupture: A case report

Testicular cancers represent about 5 % of all urological tumors. Most patients who undergo radical orchiectomy (RO) decide to place a testicular prosthesis, for a cosmetic result and to accept the testicular loss. Among all late complications, a spontaneous prosthesis rupture is a rare event contrary to penile prosthesis. The present study reported the case of a 53-year-old Italian man has presented to our department principally for a suspicious rupture of testicular implant, placed twenty years before after a RO. Despite the findings at scrotal ultrasonography, at final histology, the mass was identified as spontaneously broken intra-scrotal epidermoid cyst.

Concurrent Placement of the Testicular Prosthesis in Children Following Orchiectomy/Testicular Loss

Introduction

Testis is essential for male sexual hormone production, fertility, and psychological well-being of a male. In the unfortunate event of testicular loss, placement of a testicular prosthesis perhaps will offer a sense of well-being, improved body image, and overall confidence in the growing child.

Aims

The aim is to evaluate the feasibility and assessment of outcomes following concurrent placement of testicular prosthesis in children following orchiectomy.

Materials and Methods

This is a cross-sectional study conducted by reviewing the reports of patients who underwent simultaneous insertion testicular prosthesis following orchiectomy for various indications between January 2014 and December 2020 at tertiary hospitals in Bengaluru. Children <18 years were included in this study. A transscrotal approach was preferred in cases where a transscrotal orchiectomy was done. Transinguinal approach was preferred in children undergoing prosthesis insertion as an isolated procedure. The size of the prosthesis was chosen based on the age of the child and the size of the scrotum. Outcomes were assessed on follow-up.

Results

A total of 29 children underwent prosthesis insertion (25 unilateral and four bilateral). The mean standard deviation age was 5.58 (3.92) years. The indications for prosthesis insertion were cryptorchidism with atrophic testis (22), torsion (3), Leydig cell tumor (2), and severely virilized Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) (2). Of these, three children (9%) had complications (wound gaping in two and wound infection in one) that needed removal of the implant. The mean duration of follow-up was 49.23 months. All the parents reported a good outcome, and none of the children who underwent prosthesis placement needed a change during this follow-up.

Conclusion

Concurrent placement of a testicular prosthesis is technically easy and a safe procedure, achieves satisfactory cosmetic appearance with minimal morbidity.

3D Printing Improved Testicular Prostheses: Using Lattice Infill Structure to Modify Mechanical Properties

Patients often opt for implantation of testicular prostheses following orchidectomy for cancer or torsion. Recipients of testicular prostheses report issues regarding firmness, shape, size, and position, aspects of which relate to current limitations of silicone materials used and manufacturing methods for soft prostheses. We aim to create a 3D printable testicular prosthesis which mimics the natural shape and stiffness of a human testicle using a lattice infill structure. Porous testicular prostheses were engineered with relative densities from 0.1 to 0.9 using a repeating cubic unit cell lattice inside an anatomically accurate testicle 3D model. These models were printed using a multi-jetting process with an elastomeric material and compared with current market prostheses using shore hardness tests. Additionally, standard sized porous specimens were printed for compression testing to verify and match the stiffness to human testicle elastic modulus (E-modulus) values from literature. The resulting 3D printed testicular prosthesis of relative density between 0.3 and 0.4 successfully achieved a reduction of its bulk compressive E-modulus from 360 KPa to a human testicle at 28 Kpa. Additionally, this is the first study to quantitatively show that current commercial testicular prostheses are too firm compared to native tissue. 3D printing allows us to create metamaterials that match the properties of human tissue to create customisable patient specific prostheses. This method expands the use cases for existing biomaterials by tuning their properties and could be applied to other implants mimicking native tissues.

Insertion of a testicular prosthesis at the time of radical orchiectomy for testicular cancer is safe in patients who will subsequently undergo chemotherapy or radiotherapy

We aimed to assess the incidence of prosthesis-related complications in patients who received a testicular prosthesis at the time of radical orchiectomy for testicular cancer and were then treated with chemotherapy (ChT) or radiotherapy (RT). We reviewed the records of the patients who underwent radical orchiectomy at our Institute since 1999; we also retrieved data from patients who underwent surgery elsewhere and then received ChT or RT at our Institution since 1999. We used the chi-square test to evaluate differences in the incidence of prosthesis-related complications between the groups. We retrieved the records of 587 patients; 393 had a testicular prosthesis implanted. Median follow-up was 57.7 months. One hundred thirty-eight patients (35.11%) received ChT, 129 RT (38.82%) and 10 (2.55%) both ChT and RT; of them, 6 (4.34%), 8 (6.20%) and 0 reported problems respectively. Seven (6.03%) of the 116 patients (29.52%) who had no further treatment had complications. The incidence of complications was not significantly different between patients who had no further treatment versus patients who underwent ChT (p = .75) or RT (p = .83). Testicular prosthesis insertion at the time of radical orchiectomy is safe even in patients subsequently undergoing ChT or RT.