Literature DB >> 22082149

An outcomes analysis of over 200 revision surgeries for penile prosthesis implantation: a multicenter study.

Gerard D Henry1, Craig F Donatucci, William Conners, Jason M Greenfield, Culley C Carson, Steven K Wilson, John Delk, Aaron C Lentz, Mario A Cleves, Caroline J Jennermann, Andrew C Kramer.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is a well-established treatment for medically refractory erectile dysfunction, with long-term reliability. Overall survival is 96% at 5 years and 60% at 15 years for primary (virgin) implantation. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore factors associated with success and complications of IPP revision surgery in a multicenter study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reasons for revision including mechanical issues, patient dissatisfaction, corporal deformity, and supersonic transport (SST) deformity were recorded.
METHODS: At four institutions, 214 clinically uninfected IPP revisions were performed between November 2000 and November 2007. Data were incomplete for 28 cases (14%). Failure-free survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier's Meier product limit method.
RESULTS: The majority of revisions were secondary to mechanical failure (N = 109; 65%) and combined erosion or infection (N = 17 + 15 = 32; 19%). Sixteen percent (N = 26) were carried out on functional uninfected prostheses secondary to patient dissatisfaction (N = 9), SST deformity (N = 10), scrotal hematoma (N = 2), or upsize revision because of corporal fibrosis (N = 5). Average age at revision was 66 years. Mean follow-up time was 55.7 months. In this study, 12 individuals required a secondary revision procedure or suffered a complication. Despite prior reports of high infection rates with revision surgery, only 5.7% of clinically uninfected and noneroded prostheses were complicated by infection or impending extrusion/erosion, following a revision washout protocol. Overall, 93% of cases were successfully revised, providing functioning IPPs.
CONCLUSIONS: For this study population, component exchange followed by revision washout showed a low incidence of infection and subsequent mechanical failure.
© 2011 International Society for Sexual Medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22082149     DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02524.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sex Med        ISSN: 1743-6095            Impact factor:   3.802


  9 in total

Review 1.  A practical overview of considerations for penile prosthesis placement.

Authors:  Landon Trost; Philip Wanzek; George Bailey
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 2.  Significance of biofilm for the prosthetic surgeon.

Authors:  R Charles Welliver; Brittney L Hanerhoff; Gerard D Henry; Tobias S Köhler
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Management of erectile dysfunction in hypertension: Tips and tricks.

Authors:  Margus Viigimaa; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; Antonios Lazaridis; Michael Doumas
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2014-09-26

4.  Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score-matched comparison.

Authors:  Giovanni Battista Di Pierro; Andrea Lemma; Giovanni Di Lascio; Alessandro El Motassime; Pietro Grande; Ivan Di Giulio; Stefano Salciccia; Martina Maggi; Gabriele Antonini; Ettore De Berardinis; Cristiano Cristini; Alessandro Sciarra
Journal:  Andrologia       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 2.532

5.  Tubing erosion of an inflatable penile prosthesis long after implantation.

Authors:  Alvaro Morales
Journal:  Sex Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.491

Review 6.  Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction.

Authors:  Timothy K O'Rourke; Alexander Erbella; Yu Zhang; Matthew S Wosnitzer
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-11

Review 7.  Preoperative counseling and expectation management for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation.

Authors:  Gopal L Narang; Bradley D Figler; Robert M Coward
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-11

Review 8.  Modern treatment strategies for penile prosthetics in Peyronie's disease: a contemporary clinical review.

Authors:  Matthew J Ziegelmann; M Ryan Farrell; Laurence A Levine
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.285

9.  Infrequent Reservoir-Related Complications of Urologic Prosthetics: A Case Series and Literature Review.

Authors:  Tao Cui; Ryan Terlecki; Majid Mirzazadeh
Journal:  Sex Med       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 2.491

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.