Rooker, Steven A.

Abstract Background Recurrent pleomorphic adenoma (PA) can be a lifelong disease, and rates of subsequent recurrence are high. Methods Patients between 2000 and 2015 were identified. Primary outcome was subsequent recurrence after surgical salvage. Results Twenty‐seven of 84 patients developed a subsequent recurrence. Risk factors for subsequent recurrence included a higher number of previous recurrences ( P < .01), worse preoperative facial nerve function ( P < .01), and deep parotid lesion(s) ( P < .01). Interval since last surgery was protective ( P < .01), specifically >10 years since last surgery ( P < .01). For patients with a >10‐year interval since their last surgery, the subsequent recurrence‐free rate at 10 years follow‐up was 80.2% vs 31.8%. Conclusions For patients presenting with a >10‐year interval since their last surgery, subsequent recurrence rates are low, which may allow for as needed surveillance recommendations. For patients presenting with recurrent PA and ≤10 years since their last surgery, a closer surveillance is warranted.

AbstractBackgroundIn patients presenting with recurrent pleomorphic adenoma (rPA), clinical evaluation can fail to recognize carcinoma ex PA (cxPA). We aim to identify the risk factors for cxPA.MethodsThis is a single institution retrospective case‐control study from 2000 to 2015. CxPA was diagnosed based on surgical pathology. Demographics, clinical, and social histories were collected.ResultsA number of 13/106 (12.3%) patients were diagnosed with cxPA, of which only 4/13 (31%) had clinical features suspicious for malignancy. Compared to benign rPA, factors associated with cxPA included age >50 (odds ratio [OR] 6.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.71‐25.98, P < .01), >10 pack‐years of smoking history (OR 3.36, 95% CI: 1.01‐11.14, P = .04), and the largest tumor being >2 cm on pathology (OR 4.42, 95% CI: 1.14‐17.10, P = .03).ConclusionsIn patients presenting with rPA, risk factors for malignant transformation include age >50, significant smoking history, and tumors larger than 2 cm. Clinical signs of malignancy such as rapid growth or pain are not always present.

ABSTRACT Background Penile prostheses are commonly used to achieve erectile rigidity after phalloplasty in trans masculine patients. Implantation poses significant challenges because of the delicate nature of the neophallus and lack of native erectile tissue. Many groups have developed novel phalloplasty and prosthesis insertion techniques, but none have proven superior. Aim To analyze and aggregate reported characteristics and outcomes of penile prosthesis implantation in the trans masculine patient. Methods A comprehensive literature search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Registry databases was conducted for studies published through February 19, 2019, with multiple search terms related to penile prosthesis use in gender-affirming surgical procedures. Outcomes Studies were included and tabulated if they reported prosthesis outcomes in patients who received a neophallus as part of a gender-affirming procedure. Results 23 journal articles met inclusion criteria from 434 references identified. All selected articles were either retrospective or case series/reports. A total of 1,056 patients underwent phalloplasty, and 792 received a penile prosthesis. Most (83.6%) of the prostheses were inflatable, whereas 16.4% were non-inflatable. The number of cylinders used for each prosthesis was 61.0% single-cylinder and 39.0% double-cylinder. The mean follow-up duration was 3.0 years. Of patients who received a prosthesis, 36.2% reported a prosthesis complication; at follow-up 60.0% of patients had their original implant present, and 83.9% reported achieving penetration. Clinical Implications Prosthesis implantation in gender-affirming operations poses significant risk of complication, but it is still a reasonable and useful method to achieve rigidity necessary for sexual intercourse. Strength & Limitation This is the first study to aggregate all reported penile prosthesis characteristics and outcomes in trans masculine patients. This study was significantly limited by inconsistent reporting of demographics, sensation, urinary health, patient satisfaction, and penetrative sex. The lack of comparative studies precluded any meaningful meta-analytical comparison. Conclusions There is a great need for a prosthesis designed to meet the specific needs of the trans masculine patient after phalloplasty. Standardized methods of reporting implant outcomes including sexual function, sensation, and patient satisfaction should be refined for future studies. This study can assist patients and surgeons about the risks and benefits of this procedure.