Viers, Boyd R

ABSTRACT Introduction High submuscular ectopic placement of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs via the inguinal canal has been popularized as an alternative to the retropubic (orthotopic) location, particularly among men with prior pelvic surgery. Published results suggest minimal complications and high patient satisfaction. However, in our practice, we identified several patients presenting for IPP revision after high submuscular placement who were found to have reservoirs within the peritoneal cavity. Aim Given the potential for complications, we performed a cadaveric study to define the anatomic location of reservoirs placed using this technique. Methods We utilized 10 fresh male cadavers without embalming. Bilateral ectopic reservoir placement (10 AMS Conceal [Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA] and 10 Coloplast Cloverleaf [Coloplast Corp, Humlebaek, Denmark]) was performed using the high submuscular technique via a penoscrotal incision. Strict adherence to published reports detailing the technique was emphasized to assure reliability of findings. Main Outcome Measures Anatomic dissection was performed to identify reservoir location within the abdominal wall layers. Results Twenty IPP reservoirs were placed without difficulty or concern for inadvertent malpositioning. Sixteen reservoirs (80%) were found anterior to the transversalis fascia, including 7 (35%) deep to the rectus muscle and 9 (45%) deep to the external oblique fascia and lateral to the rectus muscle belly. Two reservoirs (10%) were identified in the retroperitoneal space, while 1 (5%) was preperitoneal (deep to transversalis fascia) and 1 (5%) was intraperitoneal. Conclusion Placement of IPP reservoirs using the high submuscular technique results in variable anatomic locations, including within or immediately superficial to the peritoneal cavity. Given the lack of immediate recognition and risk of delayed complications with suboptimal reservoir placement, further studies are mandated to assess the long-term safety of the technique.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of patient age on device outcomes among patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter.MethodsA total of 1081 male patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement from 1983 to 2011 were analyzed, including 91 men (8%) who were aged >80 years at the time of surgery. Revisions and explanations were compared between men stratified by decade of life. Hazard ratios adjusting for competing risks were used to determine the association with age and artificial urinary sphincter device outcomes (infection/erosion, urethral atrophy and malfunction), while overall device failure was estimated using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analysis.ResultsPatients aged >80 years were more likely to have coronary disease (P = 0.009), diabetes mellitus (P = 0.04), hypertension (P = 0.002) and lower body mass index (P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, patients aged >80 years were significantly more likely to experience device erosion or infection compared with a reference of patients aged <60 years (hazard ratio 4.13; P = 0.046), whereas there was no difference in those patients aged 60–70 years or 70–80 years compared with the reference group (P = 0.56 and 0.45). There was no significant difference in overall device survival between the age‐stratified groups (P = 0.26).ConclusionsAlthough overall artificial urinary sphincter device survival is similar, patients aged >80 years are more likely to experience erosion or infection compared with younger patients. Despite this, the overall device failure rate is low, and artificial urinary sphincter might be considered for appropriately selected and counseled octogenarians.