OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness of synchronous prosthetic treatment of male urinary incontinence and impotence using a single transverse scrotal incision. METHODS: A total of 92 inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs), 21 artificial urinary sphincters (AUSs), and 15 combined IPPs/AUSs were implanted in 128 men at Brooke Army Medical Center and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. The operative times and outcomes were compared among three groups (group 1, IPP; group 2, AUS; and group 3, dual IPP/AUS). We performed cost estimates of synchronous versus two-stage implant procedures. RESULTS: Dual implantation in a single-stage procedure significantly reduced (24.7%) the operative time (P <0.05, mean 113 minutes) compared with the total time for the individual procedures (IPP, average of 78 minutes; AUS, average of 72 minutes; total 150 minutes). No prosthetic infections or erosions occurred in this series. Dual implantation was associated with approximately a $7000 cost savings compared with individual procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study have shown that dual prosthetic implantation through a single incision is safe, efficient, and cost-effective.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness of synchronous prosthetic treatment of male urinary incontinence and impotence using a single transverse scrotal incision. METHODS: A total of 92 inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs), 21 artificial urinary sphincters (AUSs), and 15 combined IPPs/AUSs were implanted in 128 men at Brooke Army Medical Center and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. The operative times and outcomes were compared among three groups (group 1, IPP; group 2, AUS; and group 3, dual IPP/AUS). We performed cost estimates of synchronous versus two-stage implant procedures. RESULTS: Dual implantation in a single-stage procedure significantly reduced (24.7%) the operative time (P <0.05, mean 113 minutes) compared with the total time for the individual procedures (IPP, average of 78 minutes; AUS, average of 72 minutes; total 150 minutes). No prosthetic infections or erosions occurred in this series. Dual implantation was associated with approximately a $7000 cost savings compared with individual procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study have shown that dual prosthetic implantation through a single incision is safe, efficient, and cost-effective.
Authors: Juan I Martínez-Salamanca; Estefanía Linares Espinós; Ignacio Moncada; Luis Del Portillo; Joaquín Carballido Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2015 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.285