Comparison of penile prosthesis types' complications: A retrospective analysis of single center

  • Erdem Kisa | drerdemkisa@hotmail.com Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.
  • Mehmet Zeynel Keskin Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.
  • Cem Yucel Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.
  • Murat Ucar Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.
  • Okan Yalbuzdag Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.
  • Yusuf Ozlem Ilbey Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and complication rates associated with semirigid (malleable) and inflatable penile prostheses (PPs) and investigate the factors that influence these complications. Material and methods: The records of 131 patients who had undergone penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) in our clinic due to erectile dysfunction (ED) between January 2010 and March 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The initial surgery included 116 primary implants and 15 men had two revision operations. Patients were assigned to two groups as semirigid (malleable) PPI (group 1) and inflatable PPI (group 2) patients, and obtained data were compared across these two groups. Results: Group 1 included 93 patients, while Group 2 included 38 patients. Postoperative complication rates of Group 1 were 8.6% (n = 8), and Group 2 were 21% (n = 8), and the comparison of postoperative complication rates revealed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.025). The majority of these complications (50%) was constituted by mechanical failure associated with inflatable PPs. When patients were further segregated as those with and without diabetes type 2 (DM) and those who had and had not undergone radical pelvic surgery (RPS), the comparison of complication rates across these subgroups did not yield any significant difference. Conclusions: We determined in this study that semirigid (malleable) PPs were associated with lower complication rates compared to the inflatable group, particularly with regard to mechanic failure, and that DM and history of RPS did not make a difference in complication rates in patients planned to undergo PPI.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

References:

Evans C. The use of penile prostheses in the treatment of impotence. Br J Urol 1998; 81: 591–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00597.x

Natali A, Olianas R, Fisch M. Penile implantation in Europe: successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany. J Sex Med 2008;5:1503-1512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00819.x

Atienza Merino G. Penile prosthesis for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Actas Urol Esp. 2006 Feb;30(2):159-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0210-4806(06)73418-0

Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, et al. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol 2007;177:262-266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.094

Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol 2001;166:932-937.

Gentile G, Franceschelli A, Massenio P, et al. Patient’s satisfaction after 2-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: an Italian multicentric study. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2016;88:1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2016.1.1

Trost L, Hellstrom WJ. History, contemporary outcomes, and future of penile prostheses: a review of the literature. Sex Med Rev 2013;1:150-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smrj.8

Henry GD, Karpman E, Brant W, et al. The who, how and what of real-world penile implantation in 2015: the PROPPER registry baseline data. J Urol 2016;195:427-433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.109

Menard J, Tremeaux JC, Faix A, et al. Erectile function and sexual satisfaction before and after penile prosthesis implantation in radical prostatectomy patients: a comparison with patients with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2011;8:3479-3486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02466.x

Sevinc C, Ozkaptan O, Balaban M, Yucetas U, Karadeniz T. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation: are malleable prostheses an appropriate treatment option in patients with erectile dysfunction caused by prior radical surgery? Asian J Androl. 2017 Jul-Aug;19(4):477-481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.178846

Anafarta K, Safak M, Beduk Y, et al. Clinical experience with inflatable and malleable penile implants in 104 patients. Urol Int 1996;56:100-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000282820

Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, Alzweri LM, Hellstrom WJG. Penile Prosthesis Complications: Planning, Prevention, and Decision Making. Sex Med Rev. 2019 Apr;7(2):349-359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.04.002

Ko OS, Bennett NE Jr. Ambicor Two-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: Background and Contemporary Outcomes. Sex Med Rev. 2018 Apr;6(2):319-327.

Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol. 2001 Sep;166(3):932-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65867-3

Pineda M, Burnett AL. Penile Prosthesis Infections-A Review of Risk Factors, Prevention, and Treatment. Sex Med Rev. 2016 Oct;4(4):389-398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.03.003

Bishop JR, Moul JW, Sihelnik SA, et al. Use of glycosylated hemoglobin to identify diabetics at high risk for penile periprosthetic infections. J Urol 1992;147:386-388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)37244-0

Lane BR, Abouassaly R, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Three-piece inflatable penile prostheses can be safely implanted after radical prostatectomy through a transverse scrotal incision. Urology. 2007 Sep;70(3):539-42. Epub 2007 Aug 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.04.009

Chung E. Penile prosthesis implant: scientific advances and technological innovations over the last four decades. Transl Androl Urol. 2017 Feb;6(1):37-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2016.12.06

Ko OS, Bennett NE Jr. Ambicor Two-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: Background and Contemporary Outcomes. Sex Med Rev. 2018 Apr;6(2):319-327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.07.010

Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN. Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology. 2003 Nov;62(5):918-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00665-4

Published
2020-12-21
Info
Issue
Section
Online Only - Original Papers
Keywords:
Penile prosthesis; Penile prosthesis implant; Erectile dysfunction; Impotence; Radical surgery; Satisfaction
Statistics
  • Abstract views: 166

  • PDF: 102
How to Cite
Kisa, E., Keskin, M. Z., Yucel, C., Ucar, M., Yalbuzdag, O., & Ilbey, Y. O. (2020). Comparison of penile prosthesis types’ complications: A retrospective analysis of single center. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 92(4). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.4.386