Wesley Baas1, Blake O'Connor1, Charles Welliver2, Peter J Stahl3, Doron S Stember4, Steven K Wilson5, Tobias S Köhler6. 1. Division of Urology, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA. 2. Division of Urology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 5. Institute for Urologic Excellence, La Quinta, CA, USA. 6. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis implantation represents the gold standard of treatment for severe or medically refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). We sought to address the paucity of currently available literature about global penile prosthesis usage in regard to geography, patient age, surgical approach, implanter volume, and etiology of ED. METHODS: From device manufacturer information, we compiled data on over 63,000 implants performed worldwide. Data was grouped and then analyzed to examine trends in penile implantation between the years of 2005-2012. RESULTS: The number of implants was seen to steadily increase over the study period. Of the 63,013 total procedures recorded, 85.9% were performed within the United States. 60-78% of procedures were done using the penoscrotal (PS) approach, with only Belgium/Netherlands as an outlier with an infrapubic (INF) majority. The US was notable for having an increasing number of implanters doing 16-30, 31-50, or >100 implants yearly. Etiology of ED worldwide was variable, but "organic," post-prostatectomy, and diabetes accounted for the vast majority of cases worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: Penile prosthesis implantation is an increasing practice, as evidenced by a steady increase in the number of implants performed over a 7-year study period. Acceptance of this treatment option for ED is variable by region with the US leading the annual number of implantations by a wide margin. Worldwide, there appears to be a predominance of surgeons placing implants via the PS approach. 2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis implantation represents the gold standard of treatment for severe or medically refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). We sought to address the paucity of currently available literature about global penile prosthesis usage in regard to geography, patient age, surgical approach, implanter volume, and etiology of ED. METHODS: From device manufacturer information, we compiled data on over 63,000 implants performed worldwide. Data was grouped and then analyzed to examine trends in penile implantation between the years of 2005-2012. RESULTS: The number of implants was seen to steadily increase over the study period. Of the 63,013 total procedures recorded, 85.9% were performed within the United States. 60-78% of procedures were done using the penoscrotal (PS) approach, with only Belgium/Netherlands as an outlier with an infrapubic (INF) majority. The US was notable for having an increasing number of implanters doing 16-30, 31-50, or >100 implants yearly. Etiology of ED worldwide was variable, but "organic," post-prostatectomy, and diabetes accounted for the vast majority of cases worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: Penile prosthesis implantation is an increasing practice, as evidenced by a steady increase in the number of implants performed over a 7-year study period. Acceptance of this treatment option for ED is variable by region with the US leading the annual number of implantations by a wide margin. Worldwide, there appears to be a predominance of surgeons placing implants via the PS approach. 2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Daniel T Oberlin; Richard S Matulewicz; Laurie Bachrach; Matthias D Hofer; Robert E Brannigan; Sarah C Flury Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Gerard D Henry; Edward Karpman; William Brant; Brian Christine; Bryan T Kansas; Mohit Khera; Leroy Jones; Tobias Kohler; Nelson Bennett; Eugene Rhee; Elizabeth Eisenhart; Anthony J Bella Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Daniel J Lee; Bobby B Najari; Wesley L Davison; Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Fujun Zhao; Darius A Paduch; John P Mulhall; Bilal Chughtai; Richard K Lee Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Mary Jo Brinkman; Gerard D Henry; Steven K Wilson; John R Delk; George A Denny; Michael Young; Mario A Cleves Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Carlo Bettocchi; Fabrizio Palumbo; Marco Spilotros; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Silvano Palazzo; Michele Battaglia; Francesco Paolo Selvaggi; Pasquale Ditonno Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: L Dean Knoll; Gerard Henry; Daniel Culkin; Dana A Ohl; Juan Otheguy; Ridwan Shabsigh; Steven K Wilson; John Delk Ii Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2009-03-30 Impact factor: 3.802