Köhler, T

Abstract Introduction The EROS (Erectile Restoration Outcomes and Satisfaction) registry provides prospective, questionnaire-based follow-up after IPP, established in 2020. Objective We sought to assess general trends in the open-ended responses portion of the questionnaire. Methods Data were collected from 2020 to 2025, with a total of 568 responses. The survey included six open-ended questions pertaining to lifestyle change since IPP, reasons not to repeat the procedure, impediments to use, dissatisfaction, what patients wish they had known more about the procedure, and other recommendations. Evaluable data included 6-month responses from Rochester, Jacksonville, and Phoenix. Results Open-ended feedback was given by 66% of patients on what they wished they had known, 54% gave other recommendations, 38% gave lifestyle feedback, 7% elaborated upon reasons not to use, 3% on reasons for dissatisfaction, and 2% on reasons they would not repeat IPP. There was an overall very positive response (“Significant Improvement”, n=74.3%) from those who underwent the IPP placement, with some patients reporting that it was far more convenient than other forms of treatment, and even increased spontaneity in their sexual lives, leading to improved relationships. Among the reported responses are increased confidence (n=39.4%), increased sexual activity (n=13.3%), and improved health and exercise levels (n=6.6%). When questioning patients about why they would not repeat the procedure and what their sources of dissatisfaction were, among those who responded to each question (n=12, n=16), the most frequently reported complaint was the exaggeration of pre-existing curves (n=41.7%, n=25.0%), particularly due to Peyronie’s disease. When questioned about what prevents use, the main responses were partner-related or due to personal problems (n=45.2%). The patients did not have many recommendations, but hoped for a better way to deflate and inflate the device (n=20.4%) and reported adequate pre-operative education and use of the pump. The table below outlines the categories of responses and the percentage of each keyword reported per question type. Conclusions In addition to standard pre-operative IPP counseling, providers should also focus on potential difficulties with device inflation/deflation, length loss (IPP not in the glans), pain/ recovery expectations, the potential for new or worsened curve (erect or flaccid), and potential changes in sensation. IPP satisfaction is high, as only 2% of patients gave responses on why they would not repeat the IPP, with many men expressing an increased level of overall confidence. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction 0.05% Chlorhexidine Gluconate (CHG) has gained popularity as an irrigant and dip for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery. Prior in vitro data is conflicting on the impact of CHG use with hydrophilic coated devices. Objective We sought to identify possible associations between CHG use and hydrophilic IPP infection rate. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2,933 patients undergoing IPP implantation across 14 referral centers. Data collection spanned from January 1, 2017 to March 1, 2024. Each surgeon contributed patients who underwent IPP implantation with CHG used as an irrigant and/or dip as well as an equal number of consecutive control patients without CHG use. The primary outcome was IPP explant for postoperative infection. Univariable analysis was used to compare patient demographics, and logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with infection. Results Hydrophilic devices were implanted in 2,150 patients. Median follow-up for non-CHG patients was 13 months (IQR 18) and four months (IQR 9) for CHG patients. The incidence of infection with intraoperative CHG use was significantly higher compared to those without CHG use (4.6%, 46/1,001 vs. 2.1%, 24/1,148, p<0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, intraoperative CHG use was associated with infection (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.24-3.47, p=0.01). Additional variables associated with infection included immunosuppression, prior IPP infection, prior priapism, and revision surgery (p<0.01, Table). On subgroup analyses, the increased infection risk of CHG was most clear when CHG was used as both irrigation and dip (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19-3.46, p=0.01) and when CHG was used during revision surgery (OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.15-9.82, p=0.03). Conclusions In a large multi-institutional cohort, intraoperative CHG use was associated with an elevated incidence of hydrophilic IPP infection. Providers may take these findings into consideration when performing IPP surgery with hydrophilic devices, especially during revision surgery. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Intuitive Surgical, Fidelis, Urofill, Boston Scientific, Coloplast, Cynosure, Antares Pharma, Clarus Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharma; Endo Pharma