Literature DB >> 11164159

Penile prosthesis in the organ transplant recipient.

D C Cuellar1, G N Sklar.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether pelvic organ transplant recipients are at a higher risk of developing complications after placement of a penile prosthesis relative to those receiving a penile prosthesis who did not undergo pelvic organ transplantation.
METHODS: Two hundred eleven men underwent placement of a penile prosthesis by a single urologist at our institution between July 1994 and March 2000. Of these, 46 patients had undergone pelvic organ transplantation before placement of the penile prosthesis. The average time from transplantation was 43 months. The average follow-up after prosthesis placement was 23 months. These patients were monitored for various complications, including infection, malfunction, autoinflation, and injury to the prosthesis. They were compared with a cohort of men who had had a prosthesis placed but had not received pelvic organ transplantation.
RESULTS: The overall complication rate was significantly higher in the transplant patients (22%) than in the nontransplant patients (7.9%) receiving prostheses (P <0.01). Infection was seen in 2 transplant patients (4.3%) and in 7 nontransplant patients (4.2%) (P <1). Malfunction occurred in 4 of the transplant patients (8.7%) and 6 of the nontransplant patients (3.6%) (P <0.2). In those patients with a prosthesis malfunction, 9 of 10 involved a three-piece prosthesis. All four malfunctions in the transplant group occurred in three-piece prostheses. The difference in the rate of malfunction was statistically significant (P <0.001) when comparing the three-piece prosthesis in the transplant and nontransplant patients (P <0.001). Surgical injury to the retroperitoneal reservoir occurred in 4 transplant patients (8.7%) (all with three-piece prostheses) and in none of the nontransplant patients (P <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of infection after insertion of penile prostheses in patients with pelvic organ transplantation was similar to that in nontransplant patients. The risk of malfunction and injury to the prosthesis (three-piece) was higher in transplant patients. The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients after transplantation and can be attributed to the reservoir complications related to three-piece prostheses. In patients with a prosthesis that did not have a retroperitoneal reservoir, no significant difference in the overall complication rate was observed. Pelvic organ transplant recipients in whom traditional conservative therapy for erectile dysfunction fails should be considered candidates for penile prosthesis placement. However, three-piece prostheses should be avoided, as these patients are best served with prostheses that do not require a retroperitoneal reservoir.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11164159     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00876-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  10 in total

Review 1.  Current Status for Semirigid Penile Prosthetic Devices.

Authors:  Raul E Fernandez-Crespo; Kristina Buscaino; Justin Parker; Rafael Carrion
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Infection Prevention Considerations for Complex Penile Prosthesis Recipients.

Authors:  Robert J Carrasquillo; Ricardo M Munarriz; Martin S Gross
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Treating erectile dysfunction in renal transplant recipients.

Authors:  John M Barry
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 9.546

4.  The utility of lockout valve reservoirs in preventing autoinflation in penile prostheses.

Authors:  Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; Dana A Ohl
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 5.  Updates in penile prosthesis infections.

Authors:  Amanda R Swanton; Ricardo M Munarriz; Martin S Gross
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 6.  Penile implant infection factors: a contemporary narrative review of literature.

Authors:  Bryce A Baird; Kevin Parikh; Gregory Broderick
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-10

7.  Evaluation of Satisfaction and Outcomes of Patients Who Underwent Two-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation.

Authors:  Yasar Pazir; Fatih Yanaral; Ufuk Caglar; Mazhar Ortac; Omer Sarilar; Faruk Ozgor
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-06-19

8.  Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alejandro Carvajal; Johana Benavides; Herney Andrés García-Perdomo; Gerard D Henry
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 2.896

Review 9.  Penile implant infection prevention part 1: what is fact and what is fiction? Wilson's Workshop #9.

Authors:  Tobias S Köhler; Lexiaochuan Wen; Steven K Wilson
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 2.896

Review 10.  Penile prosthesis surgery in the management of erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad; Mina Fam
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2013-07-02
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.