Manka, Madeleine

ABSTRACT Background Penile length loss and erectile dysfunction (ED) are common post-prostatectomy. Recent results from a randomized, controlled study (RCT) of RestoreX penile traction therapy (RxPTT) demonstrated preserved erectile function and penile length improvements in men post-prostatectomy. Objective To report outcomes of the open label phase (6-9 month time point) of the previously noted RCT comparing efficacy of RxPTT to control in men post-prostatectomy. Methods A randomized, controlled trial (NCT03500419) has been completed of 82 men post-prostatectomy. Men were randomized 1-month post-prostatectomy to no therapy (control, n=27) or RxPTT (n=55) for 5 months. Participants then entered an open label phase for 3 months. Assessments included stretched penile length (corona), standardized (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF]), and non-standardized questionnaires. Comparisons were performed of men who utilized traction at least 15 minutes daily for both phases to men who were originally control and continued with no treatment (as-treated analysis). Analyses were also performed of men who crossed over from control to >15 min daily (crossover to treatment) and those who were originally in the treatment group and continued with >15 min daily use during the open label phase (ongoing treatment). Results Of the 82 men enrolled (mean age 58.6), 55 had 6-month, and 42 had 9-month data available to review. Baseline characteristics (IIEF scores, penile length) were similar between cohorts. In the as-treated analysis (no treatment n=7, RxPTT x 8 months n=12, respectively), differences were as noted: IIEF-EFD (-8 vs -0.5, p=0.19), IIEF-OFD (-3 vs -2, p=0.86), IIEF-SD (-1 vs 0.5, p=0.09), IIEF-ISD (-3 vs -0.5, p=0.31), IIEF-OSD (-2 vs 0, p=0.29), penile length (-0.1 vs +1.8 cm, p<0.01), PDE5 use (86% vs 75%, p=0.57), intracavernosal injection use (86% vs 17%, p<0.01). Comparing men who did not use therapy at any time (n=7) to those who crossed over to RxPTT during the open label phase (n=8) demonstrated the following results: IIEF-EFD (-8 vs -6, p=0.49), IIEF-OFD (-3 vs -1, p=0.90), IIEF-SD (-1 vs 0, p=0.55), IIEF-ISD (-3 vs -1, p=0.45), IIEF-OSD (-2 vs -1, p=0.51), penile length (-0.1 vs +0.69 cm, p=0.39). Men who crossed over from RxPTT to no treatment (n=10) had relatively preserved improvements compared to those who continued with RxPTT during the open label phase (n=12) compared to baseline, respectively: IIEF-EFD (0 vs -0.5, p=0.95), IIEF-OFD (-3.5 vs -2, p=0.97), IIEF-SD (0 vs 0.5, p=0.18), IIEF-ISD (0 vs -0.5, p=0.87), IIEF-OSD (0 vs 0, p=0.66), penile length (+1.8 vs +1.8, p=0.99). Conclusions Although sample size and statistical power are limited, results from the open label phase confirm earlier findings of preserved sexual function and penile length in men treated with RxPTT compared to controls. Men who crossed over from controls to treatment experience benefits, although not as significant as those who were treated beginning at 1 month post-prostatectomy. Men who stopped therapy after 6 months demonstrated stable improvements from baseline, suggesting a preserved effect of RxPTT even after discontinuing use. If validated with external series, these findings would represent a significant advancement in the prevention of sexual dysfunction post-prostatectomy. Disclosure Work supported by industry: no.

ABSTRACT Introduction Penile length loss and erectile dysfunction (ED) are common post-prostatectomy. Recent results from a randomized, controlled study (RCT) of RestoreX penile traction therapy (RxPTT) demonstrated preserved erectile function and penile length improvements in men post-prostatectomy. Objective To report outcomes of the open label phase (6-9 month time point) of the previously noted RCT comparing efficacy of RxPTT to control in men post-prostatectomy. Methods A randomized, controlled trial (NCT03500419) has been completed of 82 men post-prostatectomy. Men were randomized 1-month post-prostatectomy to no therapy (control, n=27) or RxPTT (n=55) for 5 months. Participants then entered an open label phase for 3 months. Assessments included stretched penile length (corona), standardized (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF]), and non-standardized questionnaires. Comparisons were performed of men who utilized traction at least 15 minutes daily for both phases to men who were originally control and continued with no treatment (as-treated analysis). Analyses were also performed of men who crossed over from control to >15 min daily (crossover to treatment) and those who were originally in the treatment group and continued with >15 min daily use during the open label phase (ongoing treatment). Results Of the 82 men enrolled (mean age 58.6), 55 had 6-month, and 42 had 9-month data available to review. Baseline characteristics (IIEF scores, penile length) were similar between cohorts. In the as-treated analysis (no treatment n=7, RxPTT x 8 months n=12, respectively), differences were as noted: IIEF-EFD (-8 vs -0.5, p=0.19), IIEF-OFD (-3 vs -2, p=0.86), IIEF-SD (-1 vs 0.5, p=0.09), IIEF-ISD (-3 vs -0.5, p=0.31), IIEF-OSD (-2 vs 0, p=0.29), penile length (-0.1 vs +1.8 cm, p<0.01), PDE5 use (86% vs 75%, p=0.57), intracavernosal injection use (86% vs 17%, p<0.01). Comparing men who did not use therapy at any time (n=7) to those who crossed over to RxPTT during the open label phase (n=8) demonstrated the following results: IIEF-EFD (-8 vs -6, p=0.49), IIEF-OFD (-3 vs -1, p=0.90), IIEF-SD (-1 vs 0, p=0.55), IIEF-ISD (-3 vs -1, p=0.45), IIEF-OSD (-2 vs -1, p=0.51), penile length (-0.1 vs +0.69 cm, p=0.39). Men who crossed over from RxPTT to no treatment (n=10) had relatively preserved improvements compared to those who continued with RxPTT during the open label phase (n=12) compared to baseline, respectively: IIEF-EFD (0 vs -0.5, p=0.95), IIEF-OFD (-3.5 vs -2, p=0.97), IIEF-SD (0 vs 0.5, p=0.18), IIEF-ISD (0 vs -0.5, p=0.87), IIEF-OSD (0 vs 0, p=0.66), penile length (+1.8 vs +1.8, p=0.99). Conclusions Although sample size and statistical power are limited, results from the open label phase confirm earlier findings of preserved sexual function and penile length in men treated with RxPTT compared to controls. Men who crossed over from controls to treatment experience benefits, although not as significant as those who were treated beginning at 1 month post-prostatectomy. Men who stopped therapy after 6 months demonstrated stable improvements from baseline, suggesting a preserved effect of RxPTT even after discontinuing use. If validated with external series, these findings would represent a significant advancement in the prevention of sexual dysfunction post-prostatectomy. Disclosure No

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a risk score utilizing C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin to better predict a clinical infection for patients with obstructive urolithiasis. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients presenting to the emergency room from December 2017 to February 2019 and who underwent upper urinary tract decompression due to concern for infection in the setting of obstructing urolithiasis. Over 30 clinical parameters were assessed and a composite risk score was created. Univariate and multivariate, forward, stepwise regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of true urinary tract infection (UTI). Results: Ninety-eight patients met inclusion criteria, of which a true UTI was identified in 50 (51%). The standard model of serum white blood cells >15 or temperature >38°C had an area under curve (AUC) of only 0.67 to predict UTI. A multivariable regression-based 4-point risk score (1 point for each of the following: positive urinary Gram stain, perinephric fat stranding on CT, serum CRP >21.95, and serum procalcitonin >0.36) had an AUC of 0.91 to predict UTI. Individually, these components had an AUC of 0.68, 0.68, 0.80, and 0.77, respectively. The chances of confirmed UTI were 8%, 11%, 68%, and 100% for risk scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 to 4, respectively ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Only 50% of patients with a suspected UTI and an obstructing stone were ultimately confirmed to have a UTI. A risk score consisting of Gram stain, perinephric fat stranding, CRP, and procalcitonin can improve UTI prediction and warrants further study.

Abstract Introduction Infection remains a persistent complication of penile prosthesis (PP) surgery. Despite popularity of Mulcahy’s PP washout protocol, Betadine has known tissue toxicity. Aim We evaluated PP infection rate based on the type of intraoperative irrigation used, ½ strength Betadine vs vancomycin/gentamicin. Methods We reviewed a prospective database of men undergoing primary, revision, and salvage PPs. No other changes to operative or perioperative techniques occurred after the change in irrigation solution. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate differences in infection rate with use of Betadine vs vancomycin/gentamicin irrigation. Potential confounders were reviewed. Main Outcome Measure The primary outcome was rate of PP infection before and after change of intraoperative irrigation. Results From 2014 to 2018, 217 patients underwent PP placement at our institution by a single surgeon; of whom, 21 (9.7%) experienced an infection (primary = 10 [7.1%], revision = 11 [17.19%], salvage = 0 [0%]). Overall, 152 (70%) received irrigation with Betadine and 65 (30%) with Vancomycin/Gentamicin. Univariate analysis demonstrated significantly increased infection rates with Betadine irrigation (odds ratio [OR]: 4.64, P = .006) and with revision surgery (OR: 2.68, P = .02). Significance of increased infection rate with Betadine was maintained (OR: 9.3; P = .025) after controlling for age, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, smoking, diabetes, primary vs revision/salvage, prior penile surgery, use of ectopic reservoir, and adjunctive glanulopexy. Conclusions Changing from intraoperative Betadine to vancomycin/gentamicin solution dramatically reduced infection rates among men undergoing PP placement in both primary and revision cases. We hypothesize that differences in infection rate may relate to the relative toxicity or non-sterile nature of Betadine. Manka MG, Yang D, Andrews J, et al. Intraoperative Use of Betadine Irrigation is Associated With a 9-Fold Increased Likelihood of Penile Prosthesis Infection: Results From a Retrospective Case-Control Study. Sex Med 2020;8:422–427.