William R Boysen1, Andrew J Cohen2, Kristine Kuchta3, Sangtae Park3, Jaclyn Milose3. 1. University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: william.boysen@uchospitals.edu. 2. University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3. Northshore University Health System, Evanston, IL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of concurrent inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation on perioperative complications and long-term device survival, among men with postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. METHODS: We identified men older than 65 treated with radical prostatectomy in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare database between 2002 and 2016. IPP or AUS placement was determined by current procedural terminology (CPT) code, with dual implantation (DI) defined as IPP and AUS placement on the same date. Device survival was assessed using CPT codes for device removal, replacement, and/or repair. Complications were assessed within 90 days using ICD-9 codes. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS v9.3 (Cary, NC). RESULTS: A total of 37,599 men underwent radical prostatectomy, with AUS placed in 793 (2.1%), IPP placed in 644 (1.7%), and DI in 62 (0.2%). Relative to AUS placement alone, men undergoing DI were younger (68.8 vs 70.2 years, P = 0.03), but had equivalent Charlson comorbidity index, tumor grades, and rates of prior radiotherapy. Relative to IPP placement alone, men were more likely to undergo DI if treated with adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy. The incidence of complications within 30 and 90 days of prosthetic implantation did not differ between groups. Long-term device survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was not impacted by DI relative to single device implantation with median follow-up of 61 months. CONCLUSION: Combined AUS and IPP placement does not adversely affect perioperative complications or device survival relative to placement of either device alone.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of concurrent inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation on perioperative complications and long-term device survival, among men with postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. METHODS: We identified men older than 65 treated with radical prostatectomy in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare database between 2002 and 2016. IPP or AUS placement was determined by current procedural terminology (CPT) code, with dual implantation (DI) defined as IPP and AUS placement on the same date. Device survival was assessed using CPT codes for device removal, replacement, and/or repair. Complications were assessed within 90 days using ICD-9 codes. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS v9.3 (Cary, NC). RESULTS: A total of 37,599 men underwent radical prostatectomy, with AUS placed in 793 (2.1%), IPP placed in 644 (1.7%), and DI in 62 (0.2%). Relative to AUS placement alone, men undergoing DI were younger (68.8 vs 70.2 years, P = 0.03), but had equivalent Charlson comorbidity index, tumor grades, and rates of prior radiotherapy. Relative to IPP placement alone, men were more likely to undergo DI if treated with adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy. The incidence of complications within 30 and 90 days of prosthetic implantation did not differ between groups. Long-term device survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis was not impacted by DI relative to single device implantation with median follow-up of 61 months. CONCLUSION: Combined AUS and IPP placement does not adversely affect perioperative complications or device survival relative to placement of either device alone.
Authors: Roger K Khouri; Nicolas M Ortiz; Benjamin M Dropkin; Gregory A Joice; Adam S Baumgarten; Allen F Morey; Steven J Hudak Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 3.092