BACKGROUND: It has previously been shown that testosterone implantation is an effective and well accepted form of androgen replacement therapy, but that pellet extrusion was the most frequent side-effect. The present study aimed to reduce the extrusion rate. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the washing of testosterone pellets to remove potentially surface-adherent particles decreased the rate of extrusion of pellet implants. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized parallel group design in a single centre with consecutive procedures to be randomized (1 : 1) into a wash or control group. PATIENTS: The study included 251 testosterone implantation procedures in men with known androgen deficiency. MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint, extrusion rate per procedure, was evaluated prospectively by telephone contact at 1 week and then 3 and 6 month intervals. Secondary end-points included peri-procedure adverse events (bleeding, skin reaction, excessive discomfort) noted at the time of implant. Bruising, bleeding and infection were also evaluated as later adverse events by telephone and personal follow-up. Explanatory variables recorded as possible covariables included the number of implants used, production batch number of the implants, the operator, as well as other demographic and medical factors. RESULTS: In the wash group, the extrusion rate was 12% per procedure (19 pellets from 15 subjects) whereas in the control group, the extrusion rate was 11.1% per procedure (18 pellets from 14 subjects), indicating no evidence of any benefit of the wash procedure (OR = 1. 09 [95% CI 0.47-2.6] per procedure). There was no evidence of benefit in secondary endpoints including total adverse events (7.1%, OR 1.28 [0.44-3.9], bleeding/bruising (8.8%, 1.23 [0.47-3.3]) and infection (4.0%, 1.54 [0.35-7.6]) per procedure. Among men reporting an infection requiring antibiotic treatment according to their own general practitioners, six/ten (60%) subsequently experienced an extrusion. There were no significant differences in extrusion rate between four different operators (P = 0.24) nor among 12 different batches of pellets used during the course of the study (P = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The pellet washing procedure used during implantation does not reduce the subsequent extrusion rate. The higher rate of both primary and secondary adverse events in this prospective study compared with the previous retrospective survey may reflect either more rigorous follow-up or a secular trend.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It has previously been shown that testosterone implantation is an effective and well accepted form of androgen replacement therapy, but that pellet extrusion was the most frequent side-effect. The present study aimed to reduce the extrusion rate. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the washing of testosterone pellets to remove potentially surface-adherent particles decreased the rate of extrusion of pellet implants. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized parallel group design in a single centre with consecutive procedures to be randomized (1 : 1) into a wash or control group. PATIENTS: The study included 251 testosterone implantation procedures in men with known androgen deficiency. MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint, extrusion rate per procedure, was evaluated prospectively by telephone contact at 1 week and then 3 and 6 month intervals. Secondary end-points included peri-procedure adverse events (bleeding, skin reaction, excessive discomfort) noted at the time of implant. Bruising, bleeding and infection were also evaluated as later adverse events by telephone and personal follow-up. Explanatory variables recorded as possible covariables included the number of implants used, production batch number of the implants, the operator, as well as other demographic and medical factors. RESULTS: In the wash group, the extrusion rate was 12% per procedure (19 pellets from 15 subjects) whereas in the control group, the extrusion rate was 11.1% per procedure (18 pellets from 14 subjects), indicating no evidence of any benefit of the wash procedure (OR = 1. 09 [95% CI 0.47-2.6] per procedure). There was no evidence of benefit in secondary endpoints including total adverse events (7.1%, OR 1.28 [0.44-3.9], bleeding/bruising (8.8%, 1.23 [0.47-3.3]) and infection (4.0%, 1.54 [0.35-7.6]) per procedure. Among men reporting an infection requiring antibiotic treatment according to their own general practitioners, six/ten (60%) subsequently experienced an extrusion. There were no significant differences in extrusion rate between four different operators (P = 0.24) nor among 12 different batches of pellets used during the course of the study (P = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The pellet washing procedure used during implantation does not reduce the subsequent extrusion rate. The higher rate of both primary and secondary adverse events in this prospective study compared with the previous retrospective survey may reflect either more rigorous follow-up or a secular trend.