Thomas G Clifford1, Madeleine L Burg1, Brian Hu2, Jeffrey Loh-Doyle1, Cory M Hugen1, Jie Cai1, Hooman Djaladat1, Kevin Wayne1, Siamak Daneshmand3. 1. USC Institute of Urology, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 2. Department of Urology, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA. 3. USC Institute of Urology, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: daneshma@usc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine patient satisfaction with testicular prostheses (TP) for testicular cancer. Reconstruction represents an important part of surgical oncology, yet placement of TP following orchiectomy is infrequently performed. Improved data on patient satisfaction with TP would help in counseling patients with testicular cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients who underwent orchiectomy and TP placement for testicular cancer participated in a survey that was blinded to the providers in an outpatient clinic (2012-2014) to evaluate TP satisfaction. Categorical variables associated with satisfaction were compared using the Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Median age at TP placement was 31 years (17-59). Most patients had their prosthesis in place for >1 year (81%) at the time of the survey. No patient reported complications from the TP and none underwent explantation. All patients felt that being offered an implant before orchiectomy was important. Overall, 33 patients (82.5%) rated the TP as good or excellent, and 35 men (87.5%) would have the prosthesis implanted again. Thirty-seven patients (92.5%) found the TP to be comfortable or very comfortable. However, 44% considered the TP too firm and 20% felt the position was not appropriate. Appropriate size, appropriate position, and TP comfort were significantly associated with good or excellent overall TP satisfaction (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Overall satisfaction with testicular implants after orchiectomy for testicular cancer is high. Patients should be offered a testicular prosthesis, especially at the time of orchiectomy. Efforts should be made to optimize implant firmness, and care should be given to proper size selection and positioning.
OBJECTIVES: To determine patient satisfaction with testicular prostheses (TP) for testicular cancer. Reconstruction represents an important part of surgical oncology, yet placement of TP following orchiectomy is infrequently performed. Improved data on patient satisfaction with TP would help in counseling patients with testicular cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients who underwent orchiectomy and TP placement for testicular cancer participated in a survey that was blinded to the providers in an outpatient clinic (2012-2014) to evaluate TP satisfaction. Categorical variables associated with satisfaction were compared using the Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Median age at TP placement was 31 years (17-59). Most patients had their prosthesis in place for >1 year (81%) at the time of the survey. No patient reported complications from the TP and none underwent explantation. All patients felt that being offered an implant before orchiectomy was important. Overall, 33 patients (82.5%) rated the TP as good or excellent, and 35 men (87.5%) would have the prosthesis implanted again. Thirty-seven patients (92.5%) found the TP to be comfortable or very comfortable. However, 44% considered the TP too firm and 20% felt the position was not appropriate. Appropriate size, appropriate position, and TP comfort were significantly associated with good or excellent overall TP satisfaction (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Overall satisfaction with testicular implants after orchiectomy for testicular cancer is high. Patients should be offered a testicular prosthesis, especially at the time of orchiectomy. Efforts should be made to optimize implant firmness, and care should be given to proper size selection and positioning.
Authors: Noa Shani Shrem; Lori Wood; Robert J Hamilton; Kopika Kuhathaas; Piotr Czaykowski; Matthew Roberts; Andrew Matthew; Jason P Izard; Peter Chung; Lucia Nappi; Jennifer Jones; Denis Soulières; Armen Aprikian; Nicholas Power; Christina Canil Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-08 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Ashwin Srivatsav; Adithya Balasubramanian; Mohit Butaney; Nannan Thirumavalavan; J Abram McBride; Jabez Gondokusumo; Alexander W Pastuszak; Larry Lipshultz Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2019 Jul-Aug