Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 426
Filtrar
2.
Arch Ital Urol Androl ; 96(2): 12353, 2024 Jun 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38934528

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction can cause self-withdrawal and decreased quality of life. Patients who do not respond to pharmacological therapy and other conservative treatments are urged to undergo penile prosthesis implantation. Malleable penile prosthesis was the first prosthesis developed, but then inflatable penile prosthesis was developed to give a more natural erection. There is no meta-analysis comparing inflatable and malleable penile prostheses in terms of safety and efficacy. This study is conducted to evaluate patient and partner satisfaction, ease of use, mechanical failure, and infection rate in patients who underwent penile prosthesis implantation. METHOD: This meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocols. Five eligible studies were included from Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and SemanticScholar databases. RESULT: In this study, patient and partner satisfaction are significantly better (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.66-6.93, p = 0.0008) (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.75-3.08, p < 0.00001). Mechanical failure is also significantly higher in inflatable penile prostheses (OR 5.60, 95% CI 2.02-15.53, p = 0.0009). There is no significant difference in terms of ease of use and infection rate in inflatable or malleable penile prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: This study concluded that inflatable penile prosthesis is better in terms of patient and partner satisfaction, but mechanical failures occur more frequently in this type of prosthesis.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil , Satisfacción del Paciente , Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Diseño de Prótesis , Humanos , Masculino , Disfunción Eréctil/cirugía , Prótesis de Pene/efectos adversos , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Implantación de Pene/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Calidad de Vida , Falla de Prótesis
3.
Arch Esp Urol ; 77(3): 270-277, 2024 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38715168

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Plaque incision and grafting (PEG) is a primary surgical therapy for severe penile curvature in Peyronie's disease (PD); However, it can increase the risk of erectile dysfunction (ED), particularly in patients with pre-operative mild ED. Soft penile prosthesis (SPP) implantation is a viable treatment option in such cases. This study aims to compare the outcomes of PEG-only approach to PEG plus SPP implantation. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2019, 32 patients with PD and mild ED (5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function scores: 17-21) underwent PEG surgery. Two groups were defined based on the surgery type: PEG-only and PEG plus SPP. The long-term outcomes included correction of penile bending, erection quality, intercourse ability, penile length and sensitivity. The overall satisfaction and impact of surgery on sexual activity and quality of life were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 32 patients, 13 (40.6%) underwent PEG-only surgery, whereas 19 (59.4%) underwent PEG plus SPP. No significant differences were noted between the groups regarding pre-operative characteristics (all p > 0.1) or intra- and post-operative complication rates (all p > 0.2). The median patch area was larger in the PEG-only group (28 cm2 vs. 16.2 cm2; p = 0.001), whereas patients in the PEG plus SPP group were more likely to receive a single patch implant (100% vs. 53.8%; p < 0.001). The penile length increased in 18 patients (61.6%), with significant differences between the two groups (30% vs. 81.2%; p = 0.03). Overall, 14 patients (53.8%) reported greater satisfaction with their sexual life post-operatively, with comparable rates between the groups (p = 0.2). No significant differences were found in the post-operative 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function scores or severe post-operative ED (all p > 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: SPP placement during corporoplasty in patients with mild ED is safe and feasible, and it may be a suitable option for patients uncertain about inflatable prosthesis placement. The use of SPP resulted in longer penile lengths and necessitated smaller grafts. However, further data are required to understand the long-term clinical implications of this approach.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil , Implantación de Pene , Induración Peniana , Prótesis de Pene , Humanos , Masculino , Induración Peniana/cirugía , Induración Peniana/complicaciones , Disfunción Eréctil/cirugía , Disfunción Eréctil/etiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Diseño de Prótesis , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Adulto , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Urológicos Masculinos/métodos , Resultado del Tratamiento
5.
Fr J Urol ; 34(5): 102641, 2024 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38697265

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The salvage procedure for infected penile implants (IPs) has been a subject of interest since its inception in the late 1980s, yet its widespread adoption remains limited. The aim of this study was to realize a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive analysis of salvage techniques for IPs and assess their efficacy, specifically focusing on functional success. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed, employing Mesh terms related to penile prosthesis, penile implant, infection, and salvage procedures. Articles in French or English were considered for the final analysis, with exclusion of literature reviews. RESULTS: Fifteen articles detailing various salvage techniques for IPs were identified. Mulcahy's initial technique was described in 1996, and consisted of complete removal of infected components, extensive lavage, and subsequent replacement with a similar implant. Success rates ranged from 80% to 100%, with emerging trends favoring the use of malleable implants during salvage. Unfortunately, functional data remained limited. When salvage penile prosthesis placement involved a malleable prosthesis, between 20% and 33% of patients underwent conversion to hydraulic prosthesis. CONCLUSION: The salvage procedure for infected penile implants is a reliable method, with success rates surpassing 80%. The need for comparative studies assessing the type of implant used during salvage is required to tailor conservative management strategies for optimal patient outcomes. Finally, few data have been published regarding subsequent conversions from malleable penile implants to hydraulic penile implants after salvage.


Asunto(s)
Prótesis de Pene , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis , Terapia Recuperativa , Humanos , Masculino , Terapia Recuperativa/métodos , Prótesis de Pene/efectos adversos , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/cirugía , Resultado del Tratamiento , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Remoción de Dispositivos
6.
Sex Med Rev ; 12(3): 519-527, 2024 Jun 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38798020

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: In cases of a noninfected malfunctioning inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device, surgeons often opt to exchange all of the device rather than the defective component for fear of an increased infection rate and future mechanical dysfunction. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether partial-component exchange of an IPP device has comparable outcomes to complete explant and replacement of an IPP device with or without a retained reservoir. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR guidelines. Searches were performed on MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 2023, identifying studies reporting outcomes and complications of revision surgery for noninfected malfunctioning IPP devices. Three groups were compared: those undergoing single- or 2-component exchange, those with complete explantation and replacement, and those with replacement of all components while retaining the primary reservoir. RESULTS: Analysis included 11 articles comprising 12 202 patients with complete device replacement, 234 with partial device exchange, and 151 with retained reservoirs following revision. Mean ages ranged from 62 to 68 years, with median follow-up times between 3 and 84 months. Partial-component exchange showed a higher infection rate (6.3%) as compared with complete replacement (2.7%) and reservoir retention (3.9%). Similarly, partial exchange had a higher complication rate (23.9%) when compared with complete replacement (11.3%) and reservoir retention (19.6%). Mechanical failure rates for partial exchange were similar across the 3 groups (10%, 2.8%, and 5.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Partial-component exchange during IPP revision is associated with higher infection and perioperative complication rates but comparable rates of mechanical failure as compared with complete-component replacement, with or without retaining the original reservoir.


Asunto(s)
Prótesis de Pene , Reoperación , Humanos , Masculino , Falla de Prótesis , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Remoción de Dispositivos
7.
World J Urol ; 42(1): 276, 2024 Apr 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38689034

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: About 10% of Peyronie's patients are complex cases with severe curvature (>60 degrees), ventral plaque, multiplanar curvature, hour-glass/hinge deformity, notching deformity, and ossified plaque. In patients with complex Peyronie's disease (PD), different techniques (shortening procedures, lengthening procedures, and penile prosthesis implantation (IPP)) may be necessary to achieve successful result. This review aims to analyze the various surgical techniques employed in the management of Peyronie's disease, with a specific focus on patients with complex deformity. METHODS: Articles focusing on the surgical management of complex curvature in Peyronie's disease were searched in MEDLINE and PubMed published between 1990 and 2023. RESULTS: Shortening procedures are linked to penile shortening and are not recommended for complex cases such as notching, hour-glass deformity, or ossified plaque. Lengthening procedures are suitable for addressing complex curvatures without erectile dysfunction (ED) and are a more appropriate method for multiplanar curvatures. Penile prosthesis implantation (IPP), with or without additional procedures, is the gold standard for patients with ED and Peyronie's disease. IPP should also be the preferred option for cases of penile instability (hinge deformity) and has shown high satisfaction rates in all complex cases. CONCLUSION: While surgical interventions for complex curvature in Peyronie's disease carry inherent risks, careful patient selection, meticulous surgical techniques, and post-operative care can help minimize complications and maximize positive outcome.


Asunto(s)
Implantación de Pene , Induración Peniana , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Urológicos Masculinos , Humanos , Induración Peniana/cirugía , Masculino , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Urológicos Masculinos/métodos , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Pene/cirugía , Prótesis de Pene
8.
Fr J Urol ; 34(5): 102635, 2024 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38599322

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: With 50 years' experience, inflatable penile implants are the preferred option for erectile dysfunction refractory to pharmacological and mechanical treatment. Technical and surgical improvements have optimized patient success and satisfaction. However, multi-factorial dissatisfaction persists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to provide an overview of available technological improvements and innovations, as well as the perioperative management and complications of inflatable penile implant surgery. METHOD: A literature review was carried out over the last twenty years to answer 4 questions: what are the different inflatable penile implants available in 2023, for which indications, results and complications. RESULTS: Four companies propose inflatable penile implants in France. The main improvements have been in the various components of the prosthesis with better cylinder extension, more ergonomic reservoirs, and more manageable pumps, leading to a better durability. Indications have been extended to patients suffering from Peyronie's disease and in emergency cases of priapism. In response to demand from the transgender population, specific phalloplasty implants have been developed. New options are being developed for difficult cases of retracted penis. Results show a high satisfaction rate. Currently the main challenge is the management of infection with the development of rescue protocols using antibiotics to preserve implants - or replace them in a single operation. CONCLUSION: After 50years' experience, improvements in penile implants led to effective, satisfactory and safe treatment and can be proposed in new indications. Further development is sill necessary to offer solutions in difficult cases.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil , Prótesis de Pene , Diseño de Prótesis , Humanos , Masculino , Francia , Disfunción Eréctil/cirugía , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XXI , Satisfacción del Paciente
9.
J Sex Med ; 21(5): 494-499, 2024 Apr 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38477106

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The acquisition of skills in penile prosthesis surgery has many limitations mainly due to the absence of simulators and models for training. Three-dimensional (3D) printed models can be utilized for surgical simulations, as they provide an opportunity to practice before entering the operating room and provide better understanding of the surgical approach. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate and validate a 3D model of human male genitalia for penile prosthesis surgery. METHODS: This study included 3 evaluation and validation stages. The first stage involved verification of the 3D prototype model for anatomic landmarks compared with a cadaveric pelvis. The second stage involved validation of the improved model for anatomic accuracy and teaching purposes with the Rochester evaluation score. The third stage comprised validation of the suitability of the 3D prototype model as a surgical simulator and for skill acquisition. The third stage was performed at 3 centers using a modified version of a pre-existing, validated questionnaire and correlated with the Rochester evaluation score. OUTCOME: We sought to determine the suitability of 3D model for training in penile prosthesis surgery in comparison with the available cadaveric model. RESULTS: The evaluation revealed a high Pearson correlation coefficient (0.86) between questions of the Rochester evaluation score and modified validated questionnaire. The 3D model scored 4.33 ± 0.57 (on a Likert scale from 1 to 5) regarding replication of the relevant human anatomy for the penile prosthesis surgery procedure. The 3D model scored 4.33 ± 0.57 (on a Likert scale from 1 to 5) regarding its ability to improve technical skills, teach and practice the procedure, and assess a surgeon's ability. Furthermore, the experts stated that compared with the cadaver, the 3D model presented greater ethical suitability, reduced costs, and easier accessibility. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A validated 3D model is a suitable alternative for penile prosthesis surgery training. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first validated 3D hydrogel model for penile prosthesis surgery teaching and training that experts consider suitable for skill acquisition. Because specific validated guidelines and questionnaires for the validation and verifications of 3D simulators for penile surgery are not available, a modified questionnaire was used. CONCLUSION: The current 3D model for penile prosthesis surgery shows promising results regarding anatomic properties and suitability to train surgeons to perform penile implant surgery. The possibility of having an ethical, easy-to-use model with lower costs and limited consequences for the environment is encouraging for further development of the models.


Asunto(s)
Modelos Anatómicos , Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Humanos , Masculino , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Implantación de Pene/educación , Cadáver , Entrenamiento Simulado/métodos , Impresión Tridimensional , Competencia Clínica/normas
10.
Asian J Androl ; 26(4): 335-343, 2024 Jul 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38376174

RESUMEN

Penile prosthesis surgery is a definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). The two categories of penile prosthesis are endorsed by professional guidelines, inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and malleable penile prosthesis (MPP). Each modality of penile prosthesis offers distinct advantages and incorporates specific design features, allowing for personalized device selection that aligns with individual needs and preferences. While the overall complication rate of penile implant surgery remains low, surgeons should maintain a high index of suspicion for complications in the perioperative time period. Multimodal analgesic regimens including nerve blocks and narcotic-free pathways should be administered to manage perioperative pain. Finally, the high patient satisfaction after penile prosthesis surgery underscores the success of this ED treatment option.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil , Manejo del Dolor , Dolor Postoperatorio , Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Humanos , Masculino , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Disfunción Eréctil/cirugía , Disfunción Eréctil/etiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Satisfacción del Paciente , Diseño de Prótesis
11.
Andrology ; 12(3): 624-632, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37452742

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The minimally invasive infrapubic approach (MIIA) for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement has shown favorable peri-operative safety and efficacy profile, but scarce data exist on long-term follow-up. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the safety and efficacy of IPP implantation via the MIIA after a minimum 5-year follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified data of implanted patients prospectively included in our institutional database. Complications and functional outcomes were assessed by using validated tools. Specifically, quality of life and patient satisfaction were evaluated by the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaire. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze IPP survival (defined as a working IPP). RESULTS: Overall, 67 patients implanted by MIIA with a median (IQR) age of 64 years (61-70) were included. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 71 months (63-80). Fifteen (22%) patients experienced complications: minor (Clavien ≤2) events included changes in penile sensitivity (n = 1; 1.5%), orgasmic dysfunction (n = 1; 1.5%), pain (n = 5; 7%), urinary tract infection (n = 2; 3%), and chronic discomfort (n = 1; 1.5%); major (Clavien 3) complications were represented by mechanical failure (n = 3; 4.5%), IPP infection (n = 1; 1.5%), and cylinder protrusion (n = 1; 1.5%). The estimated IPP survival was 94% (95% CI, 91.4-96.6), 92.5% (95% CI, 89.7-95.3), and 92.5% (95% CI, 89.7-95.3) at 3, 5, and 7 years after implantation, respectively. In patients using the device at follow-up (n = 61; 91%), median (IQR) scores for QoLSPP domains demonstrated favorable functional outcomes and patient satisfaction: functional 21 (19-23), personal 16 (15-18), relational 14 (12-15), and social 12 (11-14). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study represents the longest follow-up using validated tools to assess the outcomes of IPP implantation via MIIA so far. IPP placement via MIIA confirms to be safe and to offer high satisfaction to both patients and partners at mid-term evaluation.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil , Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Masculino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Implantación de Pene/efectos adversos , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Disfunción Eréctil/cirugía , Disfunción Eréctil/etiología , Calidad de Vida , Prótesis de Pene/efectos adversos , Pene/cirugía , Satisfacción del Paciente , Estudios Retrospectivos
12.
J Sex Med ; 21(2): 163-168, 2024 Jan 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38087916

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Plaque excision and grafting (PEG) has been recommended for patients with Peyronie's disease (PD) with >60° curvature and/or hinge effect and strong preoperative erections, while placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is recommended when rigidity is suboptimal. Nevertheless, many patients counseled to undergo an IPP decline and insist on proceeding with PEG due to personal preference or desire to avoid an implant. AIM: We aim to review long-term outcomes in patients who underwent PEG for PD at our institution and investigate whether there is any difference in long-term outcomes in patients who undergo PEG despite a recommendation to undergo IPP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review from 2007 to 2021 on PEG surgery performed at a single tertiary care institution in patients ≥18 years old who had >3 months of follow-up. OUTCOMES: Postoperative information was gathered from the electronic medical record, including postoperative erectile function, patient satisfaction, and the ability to engage in penetrative sexual intercourse. RESULTS: An overall 251 patients underwent PEG with a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR, 6-54). Among these, 54 (22%) were initially advised to undergo IPP but elected for PEG. Patients who underwent PEG despite counseling to undergo IPP reported lower postoperative ability to engage in intercourse (51% vs 76%). Seven (13%) patients initially advised to undergo IPP eventually received an IPP, relative to 7 (4%) initially advised to undergo PEG. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Thorough preoperative assessment of erectile function and penile deformity can guide clinician counseling and manage patient expectations during decision making between PEG surgery and IPP implantation for PD. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, high attrition to follow-up, and risk of recall and selection bias. This is a large study with a median follow-up of 12 months, with a high-volume single surgeon who treats patients in a specialized population of complex cases. CONCLUSION: Patients who were initially counseled to undergo IPP due to suboptimal erectile rigidity but elected for PEG had worse postoperative ability to engage in penetrative intercourse, and a higher proportion of these patients eventually received an IPP.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil , Implantación de Pene , Induración Peniana , Prótesis de Pene , Adolescente , Humanos , Masculino , Consejo , Disfunción Eréctil/etiología , Satisfacción del Paciente , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Prótesis de Pene/psicología , Pene/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Adulto
14.
Minerva Urol Nephrol ; 75(6): 711-717, 2023 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38126284

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Inflatable penile prosthesis are the definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction. The two most used surgical approaches to position the implants are the penoscrotal and the infrapubic. Current trends showed that the penoscrotal approach is extensively preferred however, there is not conclusive evidence demonstrating the superiority of one technique over the other. The aim of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence available and to underline strengths and weaknesses of the two techniques. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed to identify relevant published articles. The included studies had to explicitly examine the use of three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis with a focus on the surgical access method and complications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-six articles were included in the review: seven narrative reviews, five retrospective observational studies, five prospective observational studies, and nine mixed methodology studies. The most frequent approach was the penoscrotal, which was also found more comfortable (RG1) by the operators in one study. The infrapubic approach lasts less and one study demonstrated higher satisfaction by the patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of significant differences in complications among the penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches. While the infrapubic approach is faster and patients were more satisfied, the penoscrotal approach is the most used by far. This is likely related to the more straightforward procedure through this access and the excellent surgical field exposure. For these reasons, it is also preferred in the most complex cases.


Asunto(s)
Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Humanos , Masculino , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Satisfacción del Paciente , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Pene/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos
15.
J Sex Med ; 21(1): 67-71, 2023 Dec 22.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38014798

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Penile prothesis (PP) is a recommended treatment for erectile dysfunction that is refractory to less invasive treatments, but there are few validated tools to assess patient satisfaction. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess patient satisfaction after PP implantation using the French Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI) questionnaire. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and perioperative data were collected from all consecutive patients who underwent PP implantation in our center between 2016 and 2021. The French SSIPI questionnaire was completed during a telephone call with each patient by an independent investigator. OUTCOMES: A good functional result was considered when the total SSIPI score was >48, corresponding to a score of >3 for each item. RESULTS: The median global SSIPI score for the cohort was 66 (interquartile range [IQR], 60-73), and 53 (89.8%) patients were satisfied. The appearance of the penis with the PP was the item that had the lowest score for satisfaction (median score 23 [IQR, 19-26]), while the patients reported almost no pain (median score 10 [IQR, 9-10]). When patients with a total score of ≤64 were compared with those with a score of >64, PP size was significantly greater in the group with better functional results (P = .03). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Assessment of patient satisfaction with a PP is important because this is the main criterion used to judge the success of surgery. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the satisfaction of patients with a PP using the French-validated version of SSIPI questionnaire. However, patients came from a single center and the population size was small. CONCLUSION: Almost 90% of patients with a PP were satisfied with the device when satisfaction was assessed using the SSIPI questionnaire.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil , Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Masculino , Humanos , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Prótesis de Pene/efectos adversos , Satisfacción del Paciente , Disfunción Eréctil/cirugía , Disfunción Eréctil/etiología , Pene/cirugía , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Satisfacción Personal
16.
J Sex Med ; 20(12): 1446-1450, 2023 11 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37818830

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Options to reinforce or reconstruct the corpora cavernosa during penile prosthesis surgery are limited. Synthetic grafts may confer a higher infection risk. Lightweight macroporous mesh is a promising alternative due to better integration and tissue ingrowth. AIM: The study sought to report the first experience of using lightweight mesh to reinforce or reconstruct the corpora. METHODS: The medical records of all patients undergoing insertion or revision of penile prosthesis between May 2016 and May 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient characteristics, management, and outcomes were extracted in which mesh was used for corporal reconstruction. Poliglecaprone-25/polypropylene mesh (UltraPro) was used in all cases. The surgical technique and alternatives were summarized. OUTCOMES: The outcomes were infection rate, postoperative complications by Clavien-Dindo classification, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Mesh was required during penile prosthesis surgery in 21 men (median age 56 [range, 18-74] years). Reasons for reconstruction were severe corporal fibrosis (n = 6), impending erosion (n = 6), crossover/perforation (n = 6), congenital corporal agenesis (n = 2), and excision of Peyronie's plaque. All but 2 patients (with corporal agenesis) presented for revision penile prosthesis surgery with a median number of previous revision attempts of 2 (range, 1-5). Two (10%) patients required explant after a mean follow-up of 23 ± 8.7 months. One man developed infection of the device 2 years after surgery, translating to an infection rate of 5% despite a high prevalence of diabetes (25%) in this cohort. Another required explantation due to debilitating chronic pain after 3 months. Further revision surgery for stiction syndrome was required in a third patient. Finally, another man was not satisfied with the position of the pump within the scrotum or the axial rigidity of the device, despite a second opinion suggesting no issues with the device. All men were sexually active following surgery. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A lightweight mesh can be considered to reinforce or reconstruct the corpora cavernosa in complex cases in which there are no alternative techniques available. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study using a lightweight macroporous mesh for revision penile prosthesis surgery. This was a well-characterized cohort of patients. A larger cohort with 5-year follow-up would be preferable. CONCLUSION: These early results suggest that a lightweight macroporous mesh may be an acceptable synthetic graft for corporal reconstruction. Poliglecaprone-25/polypropylene mesh may be ideal because it is partially absorbable, easy to handle, and not bulky.


Asunto(s)
Implantación de Pene , Induración Peniana , Prótesis de Pene , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Induración Peniana/cirugía , Prótesis de Pene/efectos adversos , Pene/cirugía , Polipropilenos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Mallas Quirúrgicas , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Anciano
17.
Int J Impot Res ; 35(7): 613-619, 2023 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37828138

RESUMEN

Inflatable Penile Prostheses (IPP) implantation is a surgical treatment for patients desiring definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction. While this procedure has proven to be effective, it also carries its own set of unique risks that need to be carefully considered. The article reviews the current understanding of complications associated with penile prosthetic surgery and provides strategies to mitigate these adverse events. This article covers various aspects of IPP implantation, including the risks of infection, bleeding, injury to nearby structures, glans ischemia, and device malfunction. It also discusses the importance of careful preoperative screening to identify risk factors and the implementation of infection reduction strategies such as antimicrobial prophylaxis, skin prep, and operative techniques. In addition, it emphasizes the need for postoperative vigilance and prompt management of any complications that may arise. Overall, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the risks and strategies for mitigating complications associated with IPP implantation. Our recommendations are given based on the current consensus in the field and highlight the importance of careful planning, attention to detail, and effective communication between healthcare providers and patients. Despite the potential risks, this review underscores the fact that complications following penile prosthesis implantation are relatively rare.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil , Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Masculino , Humanos , Implantación de Pene/efectos adversos , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Pene/cirugía , Disfunción Eréctil/etiología , Disfunción Eréctil/prevención & control , Disfunción Eréctil/cirugía , Prótesis de Pene/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos
18.
Actas urol. esp ; 47(6): 341-350, jul.- ago. 2023. tab
Artículo en Español | IBECS | ID: ibc-223181

RESUMEN

Introducción y objetivo La implantación de prótesis deZ pene (PP) es una alternativa eficaz para la disfunción eréctil. Aunque inicialmente la cirugía de PP se realizaba en régimen hospitalario, existe una tendencia creciente a realizar el implante de PP en un modelo de cirugía mayor ambulatoria (CMA). El objetivo de este estudio es realizar una revisión sistemática de la literatura para identificar la evidencia disponible sobre la implantación de PP en el marco de la CMA en comparación con el procedimiento realizado en régimen hospitalario. Material y métodos Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos electrónicas PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library y MEDES y en los suplementos no indexados de los congresos científicos para identificar artículos relacionados con la implantación quirúrgica de PP en CMA hasta febrero de 2021. Los términos de búsqueda incluyeron prótesis de pene, disfunción eréctil, cirugía ambulatoria, atención ambulatoria y cirugía. Resultados Entre las 171 publicaciones obtenidas (51 en PubMed, 73 en EMBASE, 3 en Cochrane, 2 mediante MEDES y 42 mediante búsqueda manual), se seleccionaron finalmente 5 estudios. No hubo diferencias significativas entre la CMA y el régimen hospitalario en términos del tipo de dispositivo, el abordaje quirúrgico o la ubicación del reservorio. Las tasas de complicaciones observadas en ambos grupos fueron similares. La implantación de PP en régimen de CMA supuso un menor coste que la cirugía en régimen hospitalario y se asoció con tasas aceptables de satisfacción de los pacientes y un adecuado control del dolor. Conclusiones Los estudios demostraron que la implantación de PP en régimen de CMA puede lograr resultados similares en términos de seguridad y satisfacción a la implantación de PP en el régimen hospitalario, pudiendo también reducir los costes y mejorar la eficiencia. Esta investigación podría ayudar a los responsables de la toma de decisiones a extender la cirugía de PP al régimen ambulatorio (AU)


Introduction and objective Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation is an effective option for erectile dysfunction. Although initially PP surgery was carried out in an inpatient setting, there is a growing trend to implant PP in a major ambulatory surgery (MAS). This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify available evidence of the implantation of PP under MAS setting and go carry out a comparison between MAS and inpatient procedures. Material and methods PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and MEDES electronic databases and non-indexed supplements for scientific congresses were searched to identify articles related to the surgical implantation of PP in MAS up to February 2021. Key search terms included penile prosthesis, erectile dysfunction, ambulatory surgery, ambulatory care, and surgery. Results Among 171 publications retrieved (51 PubMed, 73 EMBASE, 3 Cochrane, 2 using MEDES and 42 manual searching), 5 studies were finally selected. There were no significant differences between MAS or inpatient setting in terms of the type of device, surgical approach, or location of reservoir. Complication rates observed in both groups were similar. Implantation of PP in MAS was less expensive than inpatient surgery and was associated with acceptable patient satisfaction rates and adequate pain control. Conclusions Studies demonstrated that outpatient PP surgery can achieve similar outcomes in terms of safety and satisfaction to implantation of PP in the inpatient setting, while it could reduce costs and improve the efficiency. This research could provide support decision makers to extend PP surgery into the ambulatory setting (AU)


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios , Disfunción Eréctil/cirugía , Prótesis de Pene , Resultado del Tratamiento
19.
Urology ; 181: 150-154, 2023 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37574145

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess the difference in outcomes between single dilation (SingD) and sequential dilation (SeqD) in primary penile implantation, hypothesizing that patients who undergo SeqD had higher rates of noninfectious complications. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of men undergoing primary inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Intraoperative complications and postoperative noninfectious outcomes were assessed between the two groups. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of complications. RESULTS: A total of 3293 patients met inclusion criteria. After matching, there were 379 patients who underwent SingD and 379 patients who underwent SeqD. There was no significant difference in intraoperative complications between patients who underwent SingD vs SeqD, nor was there any difference in cylinder length (20 cm with interquartile range [IQR] 18-21 cm vs 20 cm with IQR 18-20 cm respectively, P = .4). On multivariable analysis, SeqD (OR 5.23 with IQR 2.74-10, P < .001) and older age (OR 1.04 with IQR 1.01-1.06, P = .007) were predictive of postoperative noninfectious complications. There was no significant difference in intraoperative complications between patients who underwent SingD vs SeqD, nor was there any difference in cylinder length. SeqD and older age were predictive of postoperative noninfectious complications. CONCLUSION: During inflatable penile prosthesis placement in the uncomplicated patient without fibrosis, SingD is a safe technique to utilize during implantation that will minimize postoperative adverse events, and promote device longevity without loss of cylinder length.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil , Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Masculino , Humanos , Prótesis de Pene/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Dilatación , Implantación de Pene/efectos adversos , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/cirugía , Complicaciones Intraoperatorias/etiología , Disfunción Eréctil/etiología
20.
J Sex Med ; 20(8): 1126-1132, 2023 07 31.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37344000

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis implantation offers a durable, safe, and effective treatment option for male erectile dysfunction; however, many urologists feel apprehensive and uncomfortable placing penile prostheses due to limited training, low surgical experience, and intra- and postoperative complication management. AIM: To compare a previously validated hydrogel inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) training model with cadaver simulations across 4 main categories: anatomic replication and realism, procedural replication and realism, educational effectiveness, and efficacy and safety. METHODS: An overall 88 participants (15 attendings, 18 fellows, and 55 residents) performed guided IPP placements on a cadaver and a hydrogel model. Based on a 5-point Likert scale, postsurveys were used to assess the participants' opinions regarding anatomic replication and realism, procedural replication and realism, educational effectiveness, and safety between the hydrogel model and cadavers. OUTCOMES: A direct head-to-head scenario was created, allowing participants to fully utilize the hydrogel model and cadaver, which ensured the most accurate comparison possible. RESULTS: A total of 84% agreed that the hydrogel model replicates the relevant human cadaveric anatomy for the procedure, whereas 69% agreed that the hydrogel tissue resembles the appearance of cadaveric tissue. Regarding the pubic bone, outer skin, corporal bodies, dartos layer, and scrotum, 79%, 74%, 82%, 46%, and 30% respectively agreed that the hydrogel tissue resembled the texture/behavior of cadavers. Furthermore, 66% of participants agreed that the hydrogel model replicates all the procedural steps. Specifically, participants agreed that the model replicates the skin incision/dartos dissection (74%), placement of stay suture and corporotomy (92%), corporal dilation (81%), measurement of prosthetic size (98%), reservoir placement (43%), IPP placement (91%), scrotal pump placement (48%), and skin closure (51%). Finally, 86%, 93%, and 78% agreed that the hydrogel model is useful for improving technical skills, as a teaching/practicing tool, and as an evaluation tool, respectively. To conclude, 81% of participants stated that they would include the hydrogel model platform in their current training. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: By replicating the IPP procedure, the hydrogel model offers an additional high-fidelity training opportunity for urologists, allowing them to improve their skills and confidence in placing penile prostheses, with the goal of improving patient surgical outcomes. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The hydrogel training model allows users to perform the entire IPP placement procedure with high anatomic realism and educational effectiveness, maintaining many of the high-fidelity benefits seen in cadavers while improving safety and accessibility. CONCLUSION: Ultimately, this high-fidelity nonbiohazardous training model can be used to supplement and bolster current IPP training curriculums.


Asunto(s)
Disfunción Eréctil , Implantación de Pene , Prótesis de Pene , Masculino , Humanos , Prótesis de Pene/efectos adversos , Hidrogeles , Implantación de Pene/métodos , Disfunción Eréctil/cirugía , Disfunción Eréctil/etiología , Cadáver
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA