OBJECTIVES: To report on the safety of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with a penile prosthesis presenting with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: From January 1990 to December 1997, 8 consecutive men with a penile prosthesis underwent RRP for clinically localized prostate cancer. Retrospective data regarding patient population, operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 65.4 years (range 57 to 70) at the time of RRP, with a mean preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level of 11.5 ng/mL. Mean duration of RRP surgery was 183.9 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 1281.8 mL. No complication requiring penile prosthesis removal occurred. In 1 case, the reservoir tubing was punctured during closure of the abdominal fascia wall. This was immediately recognized and fixed. All patients had a functioning penile prosthesis after RRP. CONCLUSIONS: RRP can be safely and expeditiously performed in patients with a pre-existing penile prosthesis. The risk of prosthesis malfunction after RRP is very low. Patients with a penile prosthesis and prostate cancer should not be denied the option of undergoing RRP.
OBJECTIVES: To report on the safety of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with a penile prosthesis presenting with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: From January 1990 to December 1997, 8 consecutive men with a penile prosthesis underwent RRP for clinically localized prostate cancer. Retrospective data regarding patient population, operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 65.4 years (range 57 to 70) at the time of RRP, with a mean preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level of 11.5 ng/mL. Mean duration of RRP surgery was 183.9 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 1281.8 mL. No complication requiring penile prosthesis removal occurred. In 1 case, the reservoir tubing was punctured during closure of the abdominal fascia wall. This was immediately recognized and fixed. All patients had a functioning penile prosthesis after RRP. CONCLUSIONS: RRP can be safely and expeditiously performed in patients with a pre-existing penile prosthesis. The risk of prosthesis malfunction after RRP is very low. Patients with a penile prosthesis and prostate cancer should not be denied the option of undergoing RRP.