Shaun Grewal1, Joel Vetter2, Steven B Brandes2, Seth A Strope2. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: sgrewal@okuso.com. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a population-based comparison of inflatable vs semirigid penile prostheses and to determine contemporary rates of reoperation and identify factors impacting the type of prosthetic implanted. METHODS: Patient-level discharge data and revisit files from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for semirigid and inflatable prosthesis procedures performed for erectile dysfunction from 2006 to 2009 in the state of California were examined. Regression analysis was performed to determine differences between the procedures in terms of infectious and noninfectious failure. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with revision and to identify associations between potential risk factors and the type of implant performed. RESULTS: A total of 2263 cases were included in the study (1824 inflatable and 439 semirigid). The overall reoperation rate was 7.42%. There was no difference in the overall revision rate between the 2 groups (7.52% semirigid and 7.40% inflatable; P=.94). The reoperation rate secondary to infectious complications was 3.6% (4.5% semirigid vs 3.23% inflatable; P=.18). The revision rate secondary to noninfectious failure was 2.96% in the semirigid vs 4.17% in the inflatable group (P=.25). Medicaid insurance (odds ratio [OR], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-3.61), African American race (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.20-2.49), age>80 (P=.046), and diabetes (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.59) were associated with receiving a semirigid implant. CONCLUSION: Reoperation rates for infectious and noninfectious failure are equivalent between the semirigid and inflatable penile prostheses. Sociodemographic factors appear to significantly influence the type of prosthesis a patient receives.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a population-based comparison of inflatable vs semirigid penile prostheses and to determine contemporary rates of reoperation and identify factors impacting the type of prosthetic implanted. METHODS:Patient-level discharge data and revisit files from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for semirigid and inflatable prosthesis procedures performed for erectile dysfunction from 2006 to 2009 in the state of California were examined. Regression analysis was performed to determine differences between the procedures in terms of infectious and noninfectious failure. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with revision and to identify associations between potential risk factors and the type of implant performed. RESULTS: A total of 2263 cases were included in the study (1824 inflatable and 439 semirigid). The overall reoperation rate was 7.42%. There was no difference in the overall revision rate between the 2 groups (7.52% semirigid and 7.40% inflatable; P=.94). The reoperation rate secondary to infectious complications was 3.6% (4.5% semirigid vs 3.23% inflatable; P=.18). The revision rate secondary to noninfectious failure was 2.96% in the semirigid vs 4.17% in the inflatable group (P=.25). Medicaid insurance (odds ratio [OR], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-3.61), African American race (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.20-2.49), age>80 (P=.046), and diabetes (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.59) were associated with receiving a semirigid implant. CONCLUSION: Reoperation rates for infectious and noninfectious failure are equivalent between the semirigid and inflatable penile prostheses. Sociodemographic factors appear to significantly influence the type of prosthesis a patient receives.
Authors: Dong Suk Kim; Kwang Mo Yang; Hyun Jin Chung; Hyun Min Choi; Young Deuk Choi; Hyung Ki Choi Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2010-04-01 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Sree Harsha Mandava; Ege Can Serefoglu; Matthew T Freier; Steven K Wilson; Wayne J G Hellstrom Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kai Li; Eileen R Brandes; Steven L Chang; Jeffrey J Leow; Benjamin I Chung; Ye Wang; Jairam R Eswara Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jeffrey D Campbell; Ernest Pang Chan; Andrew Di Pierdominico; Serkan Karakus; Bruce Trock; Gerald B Brock; Arthur L Burnett Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Amit G Reddy; Laith M Alzweri; Andrew T Gabrielson; Gabriel Leinwand; Wayne J G Hellstrom Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 5.400