Literature DB >> 25457477

National practice patterns of treatment of erectile dysfunction with penile prosthesis implantation.

Daniel T Oberlin1, Richard S Matulewicz1, Laurie Bachrach1, Matthias D Hofer1, Robert E Brannigan1, Sarah C Flury2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The increase in medical options to manage erectile dysfunction has changed how urologists approach erectile dysfunction. We reviewed contemporary trends in penile prosthesis implantation in the United States with an emphasis on practice patterns, demographics and temporal changes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Annualized case log data of penile prosthesis surgeries from certifying and recertifying urologists from 2003 to 2012 were obtained from the American Board of Urology. CPT code 54400 was used to identify malleable prosthesis surgeries and CPT codes 54401 and 54405 were used to identify inflatable prosthesis surgeries. To evaluate the association between surgeon characteristics and practice patterns we used the chi-square test.
RESULTS: The surgical cohort included 6,615 urologists who placed a total of 9,558 penile prostheses during the study period. Only 23.9% of urologists reported performing a penile prosthesis operation. Of the prostheses 75% were placed by surgeons who completed 4 or fewer such operations per year. Of urologists who recorded logs 1.5% considered themselves to be specialists in andrology and yet they were responsible for a disproportionate 10% of all prostheses implanted (OR 5.9, p <0.0001). The proportion of inflatable penile prostheses compared to malleable prostheses increased twelvefold in 10 years. The number of logged prosthesis surgeries was skewed toward more implants placed by the most experienced urologists than by new urologists (OR 1.92, p <0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Although specialists and high volume surgeons perform a disproportionate number of implant surgeries, low volume surgeons place most penile prostheses in the United States. Additional research is needed to determine best practices to achieve optimal patient outcomes in penile prosthesis surgery.
Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  erectile dysfunction; outcome assessment (health care); penile implantation; penis; physician's practice patterns

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25457477     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.11.095

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  11 in total

Review 1.  Damage Control Considerations During IPP Surgery.

Authors:  David Y Yang; Tobias S Kohler
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Minimizing Penile Prosthesis Implant Infection: What Can We Learn From Orthopedic Surgery?

Authors:  Selin Isguven; Paul H Chung; Priscilla Machado; Lauren J Delaney; Antonia F Chen; Flemming Forsberg; Noreen J Hickok
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 3.  The International Penile Prosthesis Implant Consensus Forum: clinical recommendations and surgical principles on the inflatable 3-piece penile prosthesis implant.

Authors:  Eric Chung; Carlo Bettocchi; Paulo Egydio; Chris Love; Daniar Osmonov; Sean Park; David Ralph; Zhong Cheng Xin; Gerald Brock
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 16.430

4.  The effect of minimally invasive prostatectomy on practice patterns of American urologists.

Authors:  Daniel T Oberlin; Andrew S Flum; Jeremy D Lai; Joshua J Meeks
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-02-28       Impact factor: 3.498

5.  Worldwide trends in penile implantation surgery: data from over 63,000 implants.

Authors:  Wesley Baas; Blake O'Connor; Charles Welliver; Peter J Stahl; Doron S Stember; Steven K Wilson; Tobias S Köhler
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-02

Review 6.  Troubleshooting intraoperative complications of penile prosthesis placement.

Authors:  Devang Sharma; Ryan P Smith
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-11

7.  Centers of excellence for penile prosthetics are a novel concept that will likely prove difficult to implement.

Authors:  Jason R Kovac
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-11

Review 8.  Safety and Efficacy of Inflatable Penile Prostheses for the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: Evidence to Date.

Authors:  Vinson M Wang; Laurence A Levine
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2022-02-10

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

10.  Simulation Training in Penile Implant Surgery: Assessment of Surgical Confidence and Knowledge With Cadaveric Laboratory Training.

Authors:  Aaron C Lentz; Dayron Rodríguez; Leah G Davis; Michel Apoj; B Price Kerfoot; Paul Perito; Gerard Henry; LeRoy Jones; Rafael Carrion; John J Mulcahy; Ricardo Munarriz
Journal:  Sex Med       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 2.491

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.