Simhan, Jay

Abstract Introduction Obesity, defined as an elevated Body Mass Index (BMI) >30, is a prevalent public health concern with far-reaching implications for various medical procedures and outcomes. In the context of inflatable penile prosthesis placement (IPP), where patient well-being and surgical success are of paramount importance, the impact of obesity on postoperative and intraoperative complications warrants thorough investigation. Objective Our study aimed to investigate the impact of BMI on both postoperative and intraoperative complications in an international, multi-institutional cohort of patients who underwent IPP placement. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of 4398 cases. These cases were divided into two distinct groups based on BMI: less than 30 (n = 2260) and greater than or equal to 30 (n = 2138). The study assessed various surgical factors as well as complications, including overall complications, corporal scarring, incontinence, intraoperative complications, proximal perforation, distal perforation, proximal crossover, distal crossover, and urethral injury. Results Our analysis revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative or postoperative complications between the two BMI categories. Notably, proximal corporal measurement was significantly higher for >30 BMI group (9.55 +/−2.18) compared to <30 BMI group (9.14 +/−2.19), (p = < 0.001). The incidence rates for overall complications (30.2% vs. 28.7%; p = 0.164), corporal scarring (18.2% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.36), incontinence (3.53% vs. 3.13%; p = 0.076), intraoperative complications (1.94% vs. 1.68%; p = 0.253), and specific complications all exhibited no significant differences. Similarly, post-operative complications, including both non- infectious (6.99% vs. 6.22%; p = 0.215) and infectious (2.61% vs. 1.87%; p = 0.165) complications, did not significantly vary between BMI categories. Conclusions Our findings indicate that BMI does not exert a statistically significant influence on postoperative and intraoperative complications in the context of high-volume prosthetic urology. In the absence of any other differences between patients of differing BMIs, surgeons may need to be mindful of pump tubing length concerns in obese patients. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast, Clarus Therapeutics, Antares Pharma, Acerus.

Abstract Introduction Obesity, defined as an elevated Body Mass Index (BMI) >30, is a prevalent public health concern with far-reaching implications for various medical procedures and outcomes. In the context of inflatable penile prosthesis placement (IPP), where patient well-being and surgical success are of paramount importance, the impact of obesity on postoperative and intraoperative complications warrants thorough investigation. Objective We aimed to investigate the impact of BMI on both postoperative and intraoperative complications in an international, multi-institutional cohort of patients who underwent IPP placement. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of 4,398 cases. These cases were divided into two distinct groups based on BMI: less than 30 (n = 2,260) and greater than or equal to 30 (n = 2,138). The study assessed various surgical factors as well as complications, including overall complications, corporal scarring, incontinence, intraoperative complications, proximal perforation, distal perforation, proximal crossover, distal crossover, and urethral injury. Results Our analysis revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative or postoperative complications between the two BMI categories. Notably, proximal corporal measurement was significantly higher for >30 BMI group with 1858 (86.9%) compared to 1919 (84.9%) for <30 BMI group, (p = < 0.001). The incidence rates for overall complications (30.2% vs. 28.7%; p = 0.164), corporal scarring (18.2% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.36), incontinence (3.53% vs. 3.13%; p = 0.076), intraoperative complications (1.94% vs. 1.68%; p = 0.253), and specific complications all exhibited no significant differences. Similarly, post-operative complications, including both non-infectious (6.99% vs. 6.22%; p = 0.215) and infectious (2.61% vs. 1.87%; p = 0.165) complications, did not significantly vary between BMI categories. Conclusions Our findings indicate that BMI does not exert a statistically significant influence on postoperative and intraoperative complications in the context of high-volume prosthetic urology. In the absence of any other differences between patients of differing BMIs, the IPP industry may need to consider device specific alterations with pump tubing length in obese patients. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast, Clarus Therapeutics, Antares Pharma, Acerus.

Abstract Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery is a well-established treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). There is little information in the literature regarding the utilization of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary and revision IPP surgeries. Objective We investigated the patterns of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis among a large multinational cohort of primary and revision IPP surgeries. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 5,400 patients (4,187 primary IPP patients and 849 revision IPP patients) from our Prosthetic Urology Multi-Institutional Partnership (PUMP) institutions. Usage data for intravenous (IV), preoperative oral, and postoperative oral antimicrobials were analyzed. We specifically assessed patient profiles, antimicrobial selection, and antimicrobial duration. Multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to identify significant variations between primary and revision surgeries. Results For patients undergoing primary IPP placement, 81.9% received IV antibiotics for <24 hours whereas 18.1% received IV antibiotics for >24 hours. Preoperative oral antimicrobials were used in 59.4% of patients and 99.4% received postoperative oral antimicrobials. The overall infection rate for primary implants was 2%. Notably, quinolone administration shows a higher postoperative infection rate (11.4%) compared to gentamicin (1.9%), cephalosporin (0%), and vancomycin (1.0%). Multivariable regression analysis identifies factors such as a history of infection, diabetes, and priapism as predictors for postoperative infections. Furthermore, the study finds that perioperative antifungal use is associated with a decreased risk of infection. Conclusions This study provides valuable insights into the patterns of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. Duration, type, and route of antibiotics given preoperatively or postoperatively do not affect postoperative infection rates among high volume prosthetic urologists. Giving IV antibiotics for more than 24 hours does not affect postoperative infection. Perioperative antifungals are a protective factor. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast, Clarus Therapeutics, Antares Pharma, Acerus.

Abstract Introduction The utilization of rear tip extenders (RTE) is often imperative during Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP) placement. The impact of RTE on perioperative morbidity of IPP surgery is underexplored. Objective In this study, we assess intraoperative and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing primary IPP implantation with or without RTE. Methods We performed a multicenter, retrospective analysis of men undergoing primary IPP placement between July 2016 and July 2021. A total of 4308 patients were identified, of which 2963 had no RTE and 1345 had RTE. After 1:1 propensity score matching for all confounding variables, 840 patients without RTE were compared to patients with RTE for intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Chi-square and Mann–Whitney tests were used for statistical analysis for categorial and continuous variables respectively. For multivariable analysis, we used a forward stepwise model and included significant variables found on preoperative characteristics of patients. Kaplan–Meier time to event analysis were compared with Mantel-Cox log-rank test. Results Patients with RTE use had more postoperative complications (9.6% vs 5.2%, p < 0.001). More specifically, RTE patients had more episodes of postoperative hematoma and bleeding (2.0% vs 0.7%, p = 0.033), device malfunction (2.7% vs 1.8%, p = 0.006), and glans-related complications (0.8% vs 0, p = 0.015). On multivariable analysis, use of RTE (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.07-2.34, p = 0.021), AMS 700 series device (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.27-2.94, p = 0.002), penoscrotal approach (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.61-4.18, p < 0.001), and older age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, p = 0.035) were associated with increased risk of postoperative complications. Patients with RTE use had increased rate of postoperative IPP revision (5.0% vs 2.1%, p = 0.002). The use of RTE (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00-2.90, p = 0.046), AMS 700 series device (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.01-2.97, p = 0.048), penoscrotal approach (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.63-6.17, p < 0.001), and history of Peyronie’s disease (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.31-3.82, p = 0.003) were associated with increased risk of postoperative IPP revision or explantation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, use of RTE was associated with increased risk of postoperative complications and IPP revision or explantation within 48 months (log rank p = 0.001 and p = 0.002 respectively). Conclusions In this large multi-institutional cohort, patients with RTE experienced more hematoma, device malfunctioning, and glans related post operative complications. The use of RTE is an independent predictor of post-operative complications and IPP revision or explanation. Disclosure No.

Objectives To evaluate the pre‐ and intraoperative variables that impact the integrity of the corporal bodies over time after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement, as predictors of intraoperative corporal perforation and delayed cylinder complications have not been well characterized. Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed a 16‐centre multi‐institutional database of IPP surgeries performed by experienced implanters from 2016 to 2021. Poor corporal integrity (PCI) was defined as intraoperative (iPCI) corporal complications or postoperative (pPCI) corporal complications. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of PCI, iPCI, and pPCI. Primary outcomes included intra‐ and postoperative corporal complications. Results We identified 5153 patients for analysis from 5406 IPP cases, finding 152 (2.95%) cases of PCI. On multivariable analysis, predictors of PCI included revision IPP surgery (odds ratio [OR] 8.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.15–12.92; P < 0.001), sequential dilatation (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.32–3.39; P = 0.002), coronary artery disease (CAD)/peripheral vascular disease (PVD) (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.18–2.77; P = 0.006), older age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.04; P = 0.013), and corporal scarring (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.0–2.5; P = 0.049). Predictors of iPCI included revision IPP surgery (OR 7.34, 95% CI 4.18–12.88; P < 0.001), corporal scarring (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.64–4.69; P < 0.001), radiation therapy (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.0–5.04; P = 0.049), and older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.0–1.05; P = 0.025). Revision IPP surgery (OR 7.92, 95% CI 3.69–17.01; P < 0.001), sequential dilatation (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.61–7.19; P = 0.001), CAD/PVD (OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.56–5.72; P = 0.001), and history of priapism (OR 3.59, 95% CI 1.08–11.99; P = 0.038) were predictive of pPCI. Conclusion Coronary artery disease/PVD, being of older age, having corporal scarring, undergoing IPP revision surgery and sequential dilatation were predictive risk factors for complications associated with PCI. Identifying patients who are at risk of having PCI may improve patient‐specific counselling, consideration of referral to more experienced implanters, and surgical planning to potentially promote longer‐term device viability.

Abstract Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery is a well-established treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). There is little information in the literature regarding the utilization of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary and revision IPP surgeries. Objective We investigated the patterns of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis among a large multinational cohort of primary and revision IPP surgeries. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 5400 patients (4187 primary IPP patients and 849 revision IPP patients) from our Prosthetic Urology Multi-Institutional Partnership (PUMP) institutions. Usage data for intravenous (IV), preoperative oral, and postoperative oral antimicrobials were analyzed. We specifically assessed patient profiles, antimicrobial selection, and antimicrobial duration. Multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to identify significant variations between primary and revision surgeries. Results For patients undergoing primary IPP placement, 81.9% received IV antibiotics for &lt;24 hours whereas 18.1% received IV antibiotics for &gt;24 hours. Preoperative oral antimicrobials were used in 59.4% of patients and 99.4% received postoperative oral antimicrobials. The overall infection rate for primary implants was 2%. Notably, quinolone administration shows a higher postoperative infection rate (11.4%) compared to gentamicin (1.9%), cephalosporin (0%), and vancomycin (1.0%). Multivariable regression analysis identifies factors such as a history of infection, diabetes, and priapism as predictors for postoperative infections. Furthermore, the study finds that perioperative antifungal use is associated with a decreased risk of infection. Conclusions This study provides valuable insights into the patterns of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. Duration, type, and route of antibiotics given preoperatively or postoperatively do not affect postoperative infection rates among high volume prosthetic urologists. Giving IV antibiotics for more than 24 hours does not affect postoperative infection. Perioperative antifungals are a protective factor. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast, Clarus Therapeutics, Antares Pharma, Acerus.