Kohler, T

Abstract Introduction Glans ischemia and subsequent necrosis is a rare but devastating complication of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement. Differentiating true glans ischemia from severe ecchymosis is often difficult to distinguish, yet it remains paramount given the glans ischemia principle: “when in doubt, take it out.” Objective We present several clinical scenarios and associated postoperative images wherein there was concern for post-IPP glans ischemia based on initial clinical examination. In addition, we review pertinent clinical factors that can be used to help distinguish between greater than “average” glans ecchymosis and true ischemia. Methods We present four cases from 2025 and describe clinical factors likely responsible for increased glans discoloration. Results Traditional risk factors for glans ischemia are constrictive IPP wrap, vasculopathy, use of prolonged large bore catheters, and concomitant surgery (circumcision, distal counter-incision, urethral/neurovascular bundle mobilization). Case 1 was a patient with a history of radiation for prostate malignancy who had notably hypervascular corpora intraoperatively. On postoperative day (POD) #1, the urethral meatus was ecchymotic along with patchy ecchymosis throughout the glans. The Kerlix wrap can be seen around the penile shaft up to the corona. Removing the constrictive wrap and increasing room lighting revealed a well-vascularized glans with spotty ecchymosis likely from passage of the Keith needles during deployment. Case 2 was another patient examined on POD1 after uneventful IPP placement under local anesthesia. Note the similar level of ecchymosis involving the scrotum. Case 3 is another patient examined POD1 from a penoscrotal IPP that required multiple firing attempts with the Keith needle. Again, multifocal areas of patchy ecchymosis are interspersed with areas of normal appearing glans. The patient’s skin color was also similar in appearance to the areas of ecchymosis, requiring careful attention to detail to differentiate. Finally, Case 4 is an image on POD0 after uneventful IPP. The patient required several Keith needle passes because Furlow tool severed suture. Notably, decision was made to leave the penile implant in place in all cases. The penile wrap and/or catheter was removed and lighting was optimized to evaluate for clinical change. No patient reported paresthesia or pain out of proportion to the clinical examination. All glans were warm to the touch. Rates of glans bruising at POD3 for 298 implants performed since 2024 under local anesthesia, with bruising scored 0-4, were as follows: 0: 3.7% 1: 48.7%, 2: 25.5% 3: 21.1% 4: 0.3%. This demonstrates high rates of glans bruising with local anesthesia. We speculate that the increased rate of glans bruising may be attributed to the aggressive nature of the local anesthesia block, which can result in vasodilation and ecchymosis due to needle trauma and increased vascular permeability. Conclusions IPP cylinder deployment requiring multiple Keith needle punctures, constrictive post-op penile wrap, hypervascular corpora, exam/images with poor lighting, extensive bruising in other areas, and IPPs performed under local anesthesia appear may contribute to glans discoloration that mimics ischemia. A detailed physical exam and close clinical monitoring are essential when postoperative glans discoloration is observed. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction Proximal perforation in complex penile prosthesis placement is well recognized. If recognized, suture sling repair amongst other techniques is our favored approach. Unrecognized proximal perforation often results in unilateral or bilateral perineal bruising, often with eventual proximal device migration and palpability of the proximal device in the buttock. Objective We present a series of 5 cases in which the suture sling technique was utilized for known proximal perforation, with subsequent need for immediate or delayed revision. Methods We assessed all cases performed at Mayo Clinic since 2018 that resulted in a known suture sling complication amongst 3 high volume implanters. We identified 5 cases in which the suture sling technique required revision surgery. All patients underwent cross sectional imaging for further evaluation. Results Patients were males aged 59 to 89 with erectile dysfunction. There were no consistent factors amongst the 5 cases that may have predicted suture sling complication. The majority of cases were inflatable penile prostheses (4/5), were prosthesis revision cases (3/5), utilized the penoscrotal approach (4/5), were Coloplast devices (4/5), utilized rear tip extenders (3/5), utilized Prolene suture sling (3/5), and returned to OR within 2 days for revision (3/5). The majority of the complications (4/5) involved excessive proximal cylinder length that were palpable on examination of the buttocks or near the rectum (one felt on rectal exam). One case demonstrated improper anchoring of the device not allowing proximal seating and thus S shaped deformity. We noted medial cylinder deviation on all imaging, as corporal perforation was always medial to the true corporal path. Conclusions When performing suture slings, surgeons should be very wary of oversizing. The medial cylinder path and prior surgical capsule may mislead surgeons when choosing appropriate cylinder length. If perforated, we advocate against rear tips and for under sizing in general, as proximal anchoring is reliant upon the suture, not a true corporal boundary. Similarly, the device should be fully inflated and proximally seated on palpation prior to tying down the sling to avoid S deformities. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation is associated with high patient satisfaction in patients with medically refractory erectile dysfunction (ED). There remains a paucity in the literature regarding the temporal evolution of patient following PP surgery. Objective We sought to evaluate mechanical-associated outcomes in our Penile prosthesis (PP) cohort. Methods We analyzed our prospective penile registry that includes patient-completed surveys regarding device outcomes administered at 6 and 12-months after PP placement. We specifically examined the questions: “Have you had another [prosthesis] surgery since your first operation?”; and, “Does the device ever inflate or deflate on its own, if Yes how bothersome is this for you on a scale of 1-10 (1- very bothersome, 10 no bother)?”. Chart review was performed to identify pertinent variables including reservoir location (retropubic vs submuscular) and need for prosthesis revision for survey respondents. Results A total of 304 patients were enrolled in the registry. Of these, 101 completed the 6-month assessment and 79 completed the 1-year survey. The vast majority of PP were Coloplast (91.4%) utilizing the “classic” pump. Mean chart review follow up was approximately 3 years. One device was explanted for implant infection. No additional operations were reported for mechanical failure. Auto-inflation (AI) was reported in 38 patients at 6 months and 21 patients at 12 months. AI was most common in patients with submuscular reservoir placement (75.9% of those who reported AI at 6 months and 50% at 12 months respectively). The relative risk of developing AI was doubled in patients with a submuscular reservoir [2.2 (1.05-3.44); p < 0.001)]. Degree of bother had a reported median of 5 (3.75-9) at 6 months and became less bothersome after 12-months year with a reported median of 7 (5-9) (p = 0.230) [Fig. 1]. Conclusions Early Penile prosthesis mechanical failure requiring revision surgery did not occur in our cohort but patient-reported auto-inflation was identified more frequently than previously reported. Further study is warranted, but patients may benefit from pre-operative counseling regarding the incidence of auto-inflation. Disclosure Yes, this is sponsored by industry/sponsor: Coloplast. Clarification: Industry funding only - investigator initiated and executed study.

Abstract Introduction The optimal irrigation solution with inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) remains controversial. Objective We sought to determine the impact of the type of fluid used for dipping and irrigation (D&I) on the risk of IPP infections. Methods This is a retrospective, consecutive cohort study that includes individuals who underwent initial Coloplast IPP insertion or revision between January 2021 and May 2024. Cases done from January 2021 to August 2022 (20 months) underwent Rifampin/Gentamycin for dipping and Vancomycin/Gentamycin for irrigation (Group 1), whereas those from October 2022 to May 2024 (20 months) utilized 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate for both D & I (Group 2). Surgeon, operative time, age, diabetes mellitus (DM), perioperative level of HbA1C, history of acute urinary retention (AUR), positive urine culture, and oral antibiotic (AB) regimen at discharge were obtained. The rate of infection between the two study groups and the association of risk factors with developing infection were explored by t-test and chi-square analysis for continuous and discrete variables, respectively. P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results In comparison of two study groups, infection rate was significantly higher in group 2 at 2.5% (8/314) than group 1 which did not have any infection (0/280) (P = 0.008). There was no significant association between the study group and operative time (P = 0.45), DM (P = 0.29), HbA1C level (P = 0.20) and AUR (P = 0.87) or surgeon (Table 1). Notably, two clinical infections were from non-virulent organisms (Streptococcus Constellatus & Staphylococcus Lugdunensis). Two of three patients undergoing malleable salvage failed. Since no infection was observed in group1, infection risk predictors were only analyzed in group 2. The patients in group 2 were stratified based on their diabetes mellitus (DM) status, and analyses were conducted to investigate the effect of a positive DM history on the risk of infection. The results indicated that having DM significantly increased the risk of infection, with 75% (6/8) of patients with DM developing an infection compared to 26% (78/306) of those without DM (P = 0.006) (Table 2). Notably, three of eight infections occurred in patients discharged on Augmentin or cefdinir secondary to drug interaction warning (our typical post op prophylaxis is Bactrim or ciprofloxacin). Conclusions Type of antiseptic fluid for D&I and DM were associated with IPP infection following surgery in our patient cohort. Disclosure No.

ABSTRACT Introduction IPP revision after implant malfunction yields rare insight into patient preference and perception of penile implant variations in brand and size. Objective To assess patients’ perception of their penile implant after IPP revision. Methods Retrospective review of all patients undergoing revision surgery for purely mechanical malfunction (fluid leak) at our institution since 2017. Patients with greater than 6 months follow-up after revision were contacted to comment on changes in penile size and device preference. Patients were asked 1. “Did you notice any change in penile length or girth after your last surgery, explain, and 2. “Please describe your preference (if any) of implant and why”. We utilize the Coloplast Titan with “classic” (genesis) pump in most cases, with AMS Cx cylinders being used in cases with attenuated corpora (aneurysm). Results 21 patients were identified that met criteria with an average age of 70. 15/21 were successfully contacted. 9 Coloplast, 2 Mentor, and 12 AMS devices (Cx =7, LGX =4, Ultrex =1) were revised. Device brand used to replace the broken IPP was n= 19 for Coloplast and n=3 for AMS (Cx =2, Lgx =1). Mean and median time to revision was 9 years overall (2-26) and was similar between Coloplast and AMS. Fluid leak location showed no discernable pattern. Total average implant length increased 2.2 cm from 20.6 cm to 22.8 cm. 8/10 patients were reached that had had both AMS and Coloplast devices (all AMS initially). 12 patients stayed within the manufacturer. Despite change in implanted length, most patients did not discern a definitive change in penile length unless cylinders increased by > 3 cm (perhaps reflecting under-sizing of initial implant). All patients correctly described improvement or no change in penile girth when compared to actual cylinder sizes. Patients preferred Coloplast (6 – girth/erection quality/pump), AMS (1 pump/flaccidity) and undecided (1). Several patients felt consistently cycling the device after revision led to relative length improvement and ease of use. Conclusions Our small cohort of IPP revision patients for mechanical failure reveals that revision often requires longer cylinders but this is often imperceptible to the patient. Increased cylinder girth was a key factor in driving device preference. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Senior author consultant for Coloplast