PURPOSE: The ease of the transscrotal approach for penile prosthesis implantation and the proximity of the urethra has allowed the evolution of a new strategy for dual implantation of an AUS and IPP at a single setting. Concerns regarding increased infection rates and poor outcomes have prevented widespread acceptance of this simultaneous implantation technique. A multi-institutional evaluation of dual prosthesis implantation was performed to determine the overall efficacy, safety and long-term success of this innovative approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective analysis in patients with 2 urological prostheses (AUS and IPP). Only patients undergoing dual implantation via a single transscrotal technique were included for evaluation. Comorbidities, infection rates, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 22 men underwent AUS and IPP device implantation between 2000 and 2003 in a synchronous manner. Mean followup was 17 months. Complications were urethral erosion in 2 patients (9%) and reservoir migration in 2 (9%), of whom 1 underwent revision. Importantly no patient experienced a prosthetic infection postoperatively. The overall revision rate was 14%, due to urethral erosion of the AUS in 2 patients and reservoir migration in 1. All patients reported urinary leakage requiring 1 pad daily or less. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial intermediate followup in patients who underwent synchronous dual prosthetic implantation was favorable. The inherent advantage of a single anesthetic event and a single transscrotal incision should encourage widespread acceptance of this technique.
PURPOSE: The ease of the transscrotal approach for penile prosthesis implantation and the proximity of the urethra has allowed the evolution of a new strategy for dual implantation of an AUS and IPP at a single setting. Concerns regarding increased infection rates and poor outcomes have prevented widespread acceptance of this simultaneous implantation technique. A multi-institutional evaluation of dual prosthesis implantation was performed to determine the overall efficacy, safety and long-term success of this innovative approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective analysis in patients with 2 urological prostheses (AUS and IPP). Only patients undergoing dual implantation via a single transscrotal technique were included for evaluation. Comorbidities, infection rates, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 22 men underwent AUS and IPP device implantation between 2000 and 2003 in a synchronous manner. Mean followup was 17 months. Complications were urethral erosion in 2 patients (9%) and reservoir migration in 2 (9%), of whom 1 underwent revision. Importantly no patient experienced a prosthetic infection postoperatively. The overall revision rate was 14%, due to urethral erosion of the AUS in 2 patients and reservoir migration in 1. All patients reported urinary leakage requiring 1 pad daily or less. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial intermediate followup in patients who underwent synchronous dual prosthetic implantation was favorable. The inherent advantage of a single anesthetic event and a single transscrotal incision should encourage widespread acceptance of this technique.
Authors: Peter Rehder; Germar-Michael Pinggera; Michael Mitterberger; Alexandre E Pelzer; Christian Gozzi; Ralf Herwig Journal: Wien Med Wochenschr Date: 2007
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