Trost, Landon

Abstract Background To date, no scoring system has adequately defined clinical efficacy of erectile dysfunction (ED) therapies when evaluating differences between cohorts or in meta-analytic studies. Aim To outline the minimal criteria required for any therapy to be considered clinically effective in the treatment of ED. Methods An analytic review was performed of standardized ED questionnaires, with a particular emphasis placed on the International Index of Erectile Function, Erectile Function Domain (IIEF-EFD), and the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) concept. The data were used to create a societal position statement and recommendations on best practices within clinical trials to determine treatment efficacy. Outcomes The SMSNA provided 6 key statements and recommendations to suggest best practices and define minimal thresholds for improvements required for an ED therapy to be considered clinically effective. Results The IIEF-EFD currently represents the preferred standardized questionnaire to evaluate for changes in erectile function post-treatment and is the only questionnaire adequate to assess primary outcomes. To claim efficacy, investigational treatments must demonstrate MCID between cohorts (eg, 2-, 5-, or 7-point median improvements between groups among mild, moderate, or severe ED cohorts) in prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, and adequately powered studies. In studies employing mixed-severity ED populations, a method of calculating an adjusted MCID was proposed based on statistical weighting principles. Similarly, a novel method for analyzing differences between cohorts in meta-analytic studies was presented to incorporate the concept of MCID. Based on these principles, the SMSNA would not support efficacy of a therapy based on statistical significance in a meta-analytic study alone. Similarly, studies claiming efficacy utilizing responder approaches (ie, statistically higher percentage of men achieving MCID between cohorts) would not be acceptable unless the median difference between groups on the IIEF-EFD achieved MCID. Clinical Implications The current position statement provides important, evidence-based data and scientific principles to help define what may be considered as an effective therapy in the treatment of ED. This framework provides a basis that decision-makers, clinicians, and patients may use to help differentiate clinically effective therapies. Strengths & Limitations The published literature is limited by a lack of validated instruments and data defining MCID for ED therapies between cohorts and with meta-analytic studies. The current position statement provides important guidance on these areas of ambiguity pending further, definitive data. Conclusion The current position statement provides detailed guidance on key criteria required to conclude efficacy of therapies used to treat ED.

Abstract Background The 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the most widely used device for erectile dysfunction refractory to medications, containing a reservoir inserted into the retropubic space (RPS) or an alternative/ectopic space (AES). Indications for removal of the reservoir include malfunction, malposition, or infection. In revision cases without infection, reservoir removal is sometimes optional. Aim We reviewed outcomes and complications related to reservoir removal from a large multi-institutional series. Methods We retrospectively reviewed databases at 6 institutions over 7 years. Patients with artificial urethral sphincter, urethral sling, or mini-jupette were excluded. Outcomes Outcomes and complications related to IPP reservoir removal were analyzed. Data were collected, but only reservoir-related complications at surgery were included. Data were compared between the RPS and AES cohorts to evaluate differences with a χ2 test, with significance at P < .05. Results Of 215 cases, there were 172 RPS and 43 AES reservoirs. The mean patient age was 65.3 years. An overall 131 procedures were due to malfunction and 49 to malposition of an IPP component; 35 were secondary to infection. Among those retained (n = 44), reasons included reuse, avoiding surrounding structure damage, and difficult dissection. Among those removed (n = 171), 15 required a counterincision. To determine the statistical difference between those removed from the RPS and an AES, the χ2 test result was P = .00059, indicating a significant difference in the need for a counterincision between the groups. Complications included bladder perforation (n = 1) in the RPS group and an avulsion of the epigastric vessels requiring abdominal exploration (n = 1) in the AES group. To determine the statistical difference between RPS and AES complications, the χ2 test result was P = .365, indicating no significant difference between the groups. Strengths and Limitations Strengths include being a multi-institutional study with high-volume skilled implanters. Limitations include being a retrospective review, with implanters exclusively performing penoscrotal incisions and not utilizing an infrapubic approach. Last, there was a lack of long-term follow-up with these patients. Conclusions Removal of an IPP reservoir remains safe, with few intraoperative complications. Surgeons should be aware of the inferior epigastric vessels during removal in an AES or be willing to perform a counterincision to avoid injury to surrounding structures. Surgeons should also obtain preoperative imaging to identify the specific location of the reservoir and adjacent anatomy. This is the first multi-institutional study reviewing outcomes related to reservoir removal during IPP revision or removal surgery.

Abstract Background Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) fellowships offer variable experience in sexual health domains: erectile dysfunction, Peyronie’s disease, male infertility, male hypogonadism (low testosterone), reconstruction (including male incontinence), benign prostatic hyperplasia, gender affirmation surgery, sexual mental health, and female sexual dysfunction. Aim To evaluate baseline and postbootcamp understanding and trust in these domains. Methods In 2023, 28 of 31 urologists currently enrolled in SMSNA-endorsed fellowships participated in a 3.5-day training bootcamp in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Participants were asked to complete pre- and postbootcamp surveys. The bootcamp curriculum offered American Urological Association guidelines and case-based lectures, hands-on clinical training with cadavers (penile surgery) and models (collagenase training), and interaction with industry. Outcomes Changes in knowledge, independence, and trust in performing the procedures, as well as billing issues and feedback for future bootcamps. Results Prebootcamp surveys revealed vastly varied residency experience. Reported time with an expert faculty member was greatest for benign prostatic hyperplasia and least for female sexual dysfunction, gender affirmation surgery, and low testosterone. The lowest prebootcamp confidence in performing surgery independently was for penile grafting procedures and elevating the neurovascular bundle. Postbootcamp results revealed several areas of significant improvement in confidence (P ≤ .03): intralesional injections for Peyronie’s disease, manual modeling, penile plication, penile grafting procedures, and elevating the neurovascular bundle. There was a trend for improved confidence with the insertion of inflatable (P = .05) and semirigid (P = .08) penile prostheses. Nonsignificant improvement occurred in artificial urinary sphincter surgery (P = .12). Participants graded the bootcamp very highly and requested that next year’s bootcamp have more content on female sexual dysfunction, male incontinence, and low testosterone, as well as more hands-on skills sessions and case-based lecture formats. Clinical Implications Offering a bootcamp with hands-on instruction could significantly improve urologists’ knowledge and confidence. Strengths and Limitations As the main strength, this study was the first specialized bootcamp for urologists in the subject of men’s health, taking into account hands-on and cadaver laboratories, as well as highlighting industrial and pharmaceutical products. The small sample size was the major limitation. Conclusions Current SMSNA fellows present with varied levels of experience and confidence across sexual health domains. Notable confidence improvements were seen with topics that combined didactic lectures with hands-on trainings.

Abstract Background Penile cosmetic enhancement procedures have been performed for many years with varying success. However, they have historically been relegated to niche areas of sexual medicine, with limited data, and have not achieved mainstream adoption. More recently, the topic has been increasingly discussed within academic congresses due to availability of novel techniques, therapies, and procedures. Given their distinctive nature, the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) felt that it was pertinent to develop formal position statements to help guide both patients and sexual medicine providers on the current state of the scientific literature and to give recommendations for future research. Aim The study sought to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for injection and surgical procedures designed to lengthen, augment, or otherwise cosmetically enhance the penis. Methods A review was performed of all scientific literature listed in PubMed from inception through December 2023 relating to penile cosmetic enhancement procedures. Only invasive (injection/surgery) therapies were included due to their distinct risk-benefit profile compared with more conservative treatments (eg, vacuum erection devices, penile traction devices). Similar therapies were categorized, with pertinent data summarized and used to help create relevant position statements. All statements were expert opinion only and were based on analyses of the potential risks and benefits of the specific therapies. Outcomes A total of 6 position statements were issued relating to 5 distinct sexual medicine cosmetic enhancement procedures. Results A consensus opinion was reached by SMSNA leadership on the state of injection/surgical penile cosmetic enhancement procedures as of 2024. Key topic areas addressed included injectable soft tissue fillers, suspensory ligament division, graft-and-flap procedures, silicone sleeve implants, and sliding/slicing techniques. Distinct recommendations were tailored to each therapy and were based solely on the current state of the literature. It is anticipated that future studies will further inform position statements and will lead to ongoing modifications. Clinical Implications The current position statements provide both patients and clinicians evidence-based, expert recommendations on best practices relating to penile cosmetic enhancement procedures. Strengths and Limitations Strengths include the use of an expert panel of sexual medicine clinicians, consensus design, and summary of existing literature. Limitations include expert opinion and limited research on the topic. Conclusion The current SMSNA position statements provide evidence-based, consensus opinions on the appropriate role for penile augmentation and cosmetic procedures in 2024.

Abstract Introduction Limited data are available on the efficacy of collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) on Peyronie’s disease (PD) in men with ventral curvatures. Our team previously published a limited series of outcomes of 25 men with ventral curvatures who underwent CCH. Given the paucity of data available, we sought to provide an updated series of outcomes in this important cohort. Objective To report outcomes of men undergoing CCH injections for PD based on initial direction of curvature, including absolute and percent improvement in curvature, adverse events (AE), and other subjective outcomes. Methods A prospective registry has been maintained of all men undergoing CCH injections since 2014. All men underwent curvature assessments and subjective questioning at the time of initial evaluation and prior to each subsequent series of injections. The method of injection and subsequent protocol have changed in a stepwise fashion since 2014 and currently include injecting 0.9 mg (diluted to 0.8 mL) on back-to-back days, injecting into the point of max curve with an erection on day 1, performing in-office modeling on day 2, utilizing Restorex traction beginning on day 2, and wrapping for 4-8 days depending on results. To review outcomes, clinicopathologic data were abstracted from the registry including relevant history, exam, and data obtained at the time of penile ultrasound and curvature assessment. Outcomes are reported using a “Most Recent” definition (most recent data point used, regardless if the patient continues or finished treatment) and “Completed 8 or Satisfied” (only included if the patient indicated that they were done with treatment or had finished the full 8 injections). Results A total of 560 patients (mean age 57 years) were identified from March 2014 through Feb 2023 and comprise our study cohort. Overall, 85 men had a ventral component to their curvature and 475 non-ventral. Baseline demographics and clinical factors were similar between groups, with the exception of penile length (ventral 14.0 cm, non-ventral 12.0 cm, p<0.0001), Psych and Physical subdomain of the Peyronie’s Disease Questionnaire (10 vs 12, p=0.03), and prior treatment with CCH (3% vs 16%, p=0.03). Following treatment, men in the ventral cohort exhibited possibly greater improvements in curvature (Most Recent Definition: -25 degrees vs -24, p=0.08; 45% vs 34%, p=0.03; Completed 8 or Satisfied Definition: -35 vs -25, p<0.05, 48% vs 38%, p=0.11). However, all other outcomes were similar between cohorts, including differences in subdomains of the IIEF and PDQ, use of traction therapy, and adverse events including ecchymoses, hematomas, and popping sensations. Importantly, no urethral complications were experienced in the ventral group. Conclusions Men with ventral PD may be effectively treated with CCH with similar AEs compared to other directions. Ventral curvatures are likely associated with greater overall curvature improvements compared to other directions. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Endo - Matt Ziegelmann.

Abstract Introduction Since the FDA approval of Collagenase Clostridium Histolyticum (CCH) for the treatment of Peyronie’s Disease (PD), there has been significant debate as to its role and comparable efficacy in relation to surgical therapies. We have previously published results comparing the two therapies at 3-months post-treatment. Objective To compare various objective and subjective outcome measures at 12-months post-treatment between men undergoing CCH or surgery for PD. Methods A randomized, controlled trial (NCT04786106) is ongoing. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either CCH + traction (RestoreX) + sildenafil or penile surgery (plication and/or incision and grafting) + traction + sildenafil for PD. Objective, standardized (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF] and Peyronie’s Disease Questionnaire [PDQ]), and non-standardized assessments were obtained at baseline, and post-treatment at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. Key outcomes included differences in standardized questionnaires, penile curvature, penile length, subsequent interventions, and non-standardized questionnaire responses. Curvature was measured in two planes and summed to provide a composite curvature. Penile length was measured from pubic symphysis to corona. All adjunctive therapies were stopped at 3-months post treatment completion (i.e., traction and sildenafil). Results A total of 40 men were randomized, with 38 completing treatment and 12-month data available on 28 men (CCH=12, surgery=16). Mean age at enrollment was 54.7 years, PD duration 37.4 months (mo), composite curvature 73.1 degrees (deg), and penile length 12.7 cm. All baseline variables were statistically similar between cohorts. Regarding primary outcomes, at 12-months post-treatment, CCH men reported being very satisfied 36%, satisfied 27%, and neutral 36% with none dissatisfied. Men in the Surgery cohort reported 14% very satisfied, 64% satisfied, 0% neutral, and 21% dissatisfied (p<0.01). For secondary outcomes, the median differences between CCH and Surgery were: IIEF-EFD (+2.0 vs +2.0, p=0.82), PDQ-physical (-5 vs -5, p=0.77, note, lower is better for PDQ scales), PDQ-pain (-1 vs 0, p=0.92), PDQ-bother (-7 vs -3, p=0.12), length change (+1.0 vs -0.13 cm, p<0.05), curvature absolute change (-37.5 vs -53.8 degrees, p=0.17), and curvature % improvement (55% vs 82%, p=0.15). Compared to 3-month data, Surgery men experienced greater curve recurrence (objective: Surgery +5 degrees vs -5 degrees CCH, p<0.05), decreased subjective penile length 62% vs 9% CCH (p<0.01) and decreased sensitivity (54% vs 27% CCH, p<0.05). Both groups reported similar rates of improved sexual function (CCH 82% vs 64%, p=0.30) and change in erectile function (CCH 55% improved, 9% worsened; Surgery 62% improved, 8% worsened, p=0.53). Both groups were also equally satisfied with their curvature (CCH 55% vs Surgery 54%, p=0.97), despite greater overall curve improvements in the Surgery arm. 75% of CCH men reported improved indentation/hourglass vs 56% Surgery, p<0.05. Both groups reported similar rates of being willing to do their treatment again (CCH 73% vs 77%, p=0.64), while 91% of CCH men would recommend it to a friend vs 77% Surgery (p=0.35). Conclusions Preliminary data suggests that when compared to surgery at 12-months, CCH men were more likely to be very satisfied, experience penile length increases, and less likely to experience dissatisfaction, curvature recurrence, and decreased penile sensation. Disclosure Yes, this is sponsored by industry/sponsor: Endo Pharmaceuticals. Clarification: Industry funding only - investigator initiated and executed study. Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Matthew Ziegelmann - Endo Pharmaceuticals.