Honda, B

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 Glans ischemia and subsequent necrosis is a rare but devastating complication of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement. Differentiating true glans ischemia from severe ecchymosis can be difficult but is critical, particularly in light of the adage, “when in doubt, take it out.” However, post-operative glans discoloration can be misleading and result in premature device explantation. Objective To present clinical cases and identify distinguishing features between true glans ischemia and pronounced post-operative ecchymosis, with emphasis on risk factors and evaluation techniques. Methods A retrospective case series was conducted on four IPP patients in 2025 who presented with significant glans discoloration concerning for ischemia. Key operative variables, physical exam findings, and postoperative images were reviewed. Additionally, a prospective database of 298 implants placed under local anesthesia since 2024 was analyzed for glans bruising severity on postoperative day (POD) 3, using a 0–4 scale. Results Common ischemia risk factors included tight circumferential wrap (e.g., Coban), vasculopathy (e.g., prior arterial bypass), prolonged catheterization, and concomitant procedures. Case 1: History of pelvic radiation with ecchymotic meatus and glans. Improved after wrap removal and better lighting. Case 2: Extensive ecchymosis and discoloration of glans and scrotum noted on POD1 after uneventful IPP under local. Case 3: Patchy glans discoloration after multiple Keith needle passes. Skin tone complicated assessment. Case 4: Severe glans bruising immediately post-op following multiple needle passes due to suture breakage. In all cases, the glans was warm, well-perfused, and not painful out of proportion to appearance. No patients required explantation. Glans bruising rates in 298 implants under local anesthesia were: 0 (3.7%), 1 (48.7%), 2 (25.5%), 3 (21.1%), 4 (0.3%), notably higher than with general anesthesia. Key Clinical Indicators: Favors Hematoma: • Vascular corpora • Small/no catheter • Bruising elsewhere • Wrap excluded glans • No blistering • No paresthesias • Glans warm to touch Favors Ischemia: • Avascular corpora • Large indwelling catheter • Minimal bruising elsewhere • Coban wrap on shaft • Blistering present • Pain or paresthesias • Glans cold to touch Conclusions Significant glans bruising can mimic ischemia, particularly in IPPs placed under local anesthesia. Factors such as multiple Keith needle passes, tight wrapping, and poor photographic lighting may contribute to this diagnostic confusion. Warm, non-painful glans with widespread ecchymosis are reassuring. Avoiding premature explantation requires thorough clinical assessment, device unwrapping, and close patient monitoring. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: UroFill, Coloplast, Boston Scientific, Rigicon