https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.4.386

Comparison of penile prosthesis types' complications: A retrospective analysis of single center

Vol. 92 No. 4 (2020)
Submitted: June 1, 2019
Accepted: September 1, 2019
Published: December 21, 2020
Penile prosthesis; Penile prosthesis implant; Erectile dysfunction; Impotence; Radical surgery; Satisfaction
Abstract Views: 1100
PDF: 531
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Erdem Kisa
drerdemkisa@hotmail.com
Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.
Mehmet Zeynel Keskin
Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.
Cem Yucel
Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.
Murat Ucar
Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.
Okan Yalbuzdag
Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.
Yusuf Ozlem Ilbey
Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, Urology Department, Izmir , Turkey.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and complication rates associated with semirigid (malleable) and inflatable penile prostheses (PPs) and investigate the factors that influence these complications. Material and methods: The records of 131 patients who had undergone penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) in our clinic due to erectile dysfunction (ED) between January 2010 and March 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The initial surgery included 116 primary implants and 15 men had two revision operations. Patients were assigned to two groups as semirigid (malleable) PPI (group 1) and inflatable PPI (group 2) patients, and obtained data were compared across these two groups. Results: Group 1 included 93 patients, while Group 2 included 38 patients. Postoperative complication rates of Group 1 were 8.6% (n = 8), and Group 2 were 21% (n = 8), and the comparison of postoperative complication rates revealed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.025). The majority of these complications (50%) was constituted by mechanical failure associated with inflatable PPs. When patients were further segregated as those with and without diabetes type 2 (DM) and those who had and had not undergone radical pelvic surgery (RPS), the comparison of complication rates across these subgroups did not yield any significant difference. Conclusions: We determined in this study that semirigid (malleable) PPs were associated with lower complication rates compared to the inflatable group, particularly with regard to mechanic failure, and that DM and history of RPS did not make a difference in complication rates in patients planned to undergo PPI.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
References:
Evans C. The use of penile prostheses in the treatment of impotence. Br J Urol 1998; 81: 591–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00597.x
Natali A, Olianas R, Fisch M. Penile implantation in Europe: successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany. J Sex Med 2008;5:1503-1512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00819.x
Atienza Merino G. Penile prosthesis for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Actas Urol Esp. 2006 Feb;30(2):159-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0210-4806(06)73418-0
Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, et al. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol 2007;177:262-266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.094
Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol 2001;166:932-937.
Gentile G, Franceschelli A, Massenio P, et al. Patient’s satisfaction after 2-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: an Italian multicentric study. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2016;88:1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2016.1.1
Trost L, Hellstrom WJ. History, contemporary outcomes, and future of penile prostheses: a review of the literature. Sex Med Rev 2013;1:150-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smrj.8
Henry GD, Karpman E, Brant W, et al. The who, how and what of real-world penile implantation in 2015: the PROPPER registry baseline data. J Urol 2016;195:427-433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.109
Menard J, Tremeaux JC, Faix A, et al. Erectile function and sexual satisfaction before and after penile prosthesis implantation in radical prostatectomy patients: a comparison with patients with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2011;8:3479-3486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02466.x
Sevinc C, Ozkaptan O, Balaban M, Yucetas U, Karadeniz T. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation: are malleable prostheses an appropriate treatment option in patients with erectile dysfunction caused by prior radical surgery? Asian J Androl. 2017 Jul-Aug;19(4):477-481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.178846
Anafarta K, Safak M, Beduk Y, et al. Clinical experience with inflatable and malleable penile implants in 104 patients. Urol Int 1996;56:100-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000282820
Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, Alzweri LM, Hellstrom WJG. Penile Prosthesis Complications: Planning, Prevention, and Decision Making. Sex Med Rev. 2019 Apr;7(2):349-359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.04.002
Ko OS, Bennett NE Jr. Ambicor Two-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: Background and Contemporary Outcomes. Sex Med Rev. 2018 Apr;6(2):319-327.
Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol. 2001 Sep;166(3):932-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65867-3
Pineda M, Burnett AL. Penile Prosthesis Infections-A Review of Risk Factors, Prevention, and Treatment. Sex Med Rev. 2016 Oct;4(4):389-398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.03.003
Bishop JR, Moul JW, Sihelnik SA, et al. Use of glycosylated hemoglobin to identify diabetics at high risk for penile periprosthetic infections. J Urol 1992;147:386-388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)37244-0
Lane BR, Abouassaly R, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Three-piece inflatable penile prostheses can be safely implanted after radical prostatectomy through a transverse scrotal incision. Urology. 2007 Sep;70(3):539-42. Epub 2007 Aug 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.04.009
Chung E. Penile prosthesis implant: scientific advances and technological innovations over the last four decades. Transl Androl Urol. 2017 Feb;6(1):37-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2016.12.06
Ko OS, Bennett NE Jr. Ambicor Two-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: Background and Contemporary Outcomes. Sex Med Rev. 2018 Apr;6(2):319-327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.07.010
Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN. Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology. 2003 Nov;62(5):918-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00665-4

How to Cite

Kisa, E., Keskin, M. Z., Yucel, C., Ucar, M., Yalbuzdag, O., & Ilbey, Y. O. (2020). Comparison of penile prosthesis types’ complications: A retrospective analysis of single center. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 92(4). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.4.386

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.