Wang, Run

Abstract Introduction Penile prosthesis (PP) is one of the main approved therapies for erectile dysfunction (ED). Greater than 50 years of clinical use has led to considerable innovation in PP surgery and patient care. Objectives To summarize the current literature and provide updated clinical evidence to inform healthcare providers on best practices with PP. Methods A consensus panel was held with leading sexual medicine experts during the 5th International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM). Relevant peer-reviewed literature was reviewed with focus on research from but not limited to the last 10 years. The quality of each individual study was judged with Oxford levels of evidence (LOE) criteria, but overall LOE were not used as systematic review was not performed. The expert panel generated consensus statements based on the quality of evidence and criteria of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Results PP provides excellent outcomes for the treatment of ED. The panel developed 35 recommendations building upon previous recommendations. Nine recommendations (4, 5, 11,13,17, 25, 26, 31, and 32) are retained without change from 2015. Twelve recommendations (1, 2, 3, 7, 9,14,16,19,21, 28, 33, and 34) change syntax to make statements more active or change details. Fourteen recommendations (6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, and 35) are novel in this update. Conclusion Since the 4th ICSM, new evidence has emerged to guide PP use in modern sexual medicine. While multi-institutional studies are needed to improve outcomes, key challenges remain: reducing infections, enhancing devices, and improving awareness and accessibility. We recommend following 5th ICSM guidelines while emphasizing the importance of clinical judgment and shared decision-making for optimal PP outcomes.

Abstract Background The 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the most widely used device for erectile dysfunction refractory to medications, containing a reservoir inserted into the retropubic space (RPS) or an alternative/ectopic space (AES). Indications for removal of the reservoir include malfunction, malposition, or infection. In revision cases without infection, reservoir removal is sometimes optional. Aim We reviewed outcomes and complications related to reservoir removal from a large multi-institutional series. Methods We retrospectively reviewed databases at 6 institutions over 7 years. Patients with artificial urethral sphincter, urethral sling, or mini-jupette were excluded. Outcomes Outcomes and complications related to IPP reservoir removal were analyzed. Data were collected, but only reservoir-related complications at surgery were included. Data were compared between the RPS and AES cohorts to evaluate differences with a χ2 test, with significance at P < .05. Results Of 215 cases, there were 172 RPS and 43 AES reservoirs. The mean patient age was 65.3 years. An overall 131 procedures were due to malfunction and 49 to malposition of an IPP component; 35 were secondary to infection. Among those retained (n = 44), reasons included reuse, avoiding surrounding structure damage, and difficult dissection. Among those removed (n = 171), 15 required a counterincision. To determine the statistical difference between those removed from the RPS and an AES, the χ2 test result was P = .00059, indicating a significant difference in the need for a counterincision between the groups. Complications included bladder perforation (n = 1) in the RPS group and an avulsion of the epigastric vessels requiring abdominal exploration (n = 1) in the AES group. To determine the statistical difference between RPS and AES complications, the χ2 test result was P = .365, indicating no significant difference between the groups. Strengths and Limitations Strengths include being a multi-institutional study with high-volume skilled implanters. Limitations include being a retrospective review, with implanters exclusively performing penoscrotal incisions and not utilizing an infrapubic approach. Last, there was a lack of long-term follow-up with these patients. Conclusions Removal of an IPP reservoir remains safe, with few intraoperative complications. Surgeons should be aware of the inferior epigastric vessels during removal in an AES or be willing to perform a counterincision to avoid injury to surrounding structures. Surgeons should also obtain preoperative imaging to identify the specific location of the reservoir and adjacent anatomy. This is the first multi-institutional study reviewing outcomes related to reservoir removal during IPP revision or removal surgery.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with prostate cancer suffer significant sexual dysfunction after treatment which negatively affects them and their partners psychologically, and strain their relationships.AimWe convened an international panel with the aim of developing guidelines that will inform clinicians, patients and partners about the impact of prostate cancer therapies (PCT) on patients’ and partners’ sexual health, their relationships, and about biopsychosocial rehabilitation in prostate cancer (PC) survivorship.MethodsThe guidelines panel included international expert researchers and clinicians, and a guideline methodologist. A systematic review of the literature, using the Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsychINFO, LGBT Life, and Embase databases was conducted (1995–2022) according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Study selection was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Each statement was assigned an evidence strength (A-C) and a recommendation level (strong, moderate, conditional) based on benefit/risk assessment, according to the nomenclature of the American Urological Association (AUA). Data synthesis included meta-analyses of studies deemed of sufficient quality (3), using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).OutcomesGuidelines for sexual health care for patients with prostate cancer were developed, based on available evidence and the expertise of the international panel.ResultsThe guidelines account for patients’ cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity. They attend to the unique needs of individuals with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. The guidelines are based on literature review, a theoretical model of sexual recovery after PCT, and 6 principles that promote clinician-initiated discussion of realistic expectations of sexual outcomes and mitigation of sexual side-effects through biopsychosocial rehabilitation. Forty-seven statements address the psychosexual, relationship, and functional domains in addition to statements on lifestyle modification, assessment, provider education, and systemic challenges to providing sexual health care in PC survivorship.Clinical ImplicationsThe guidelines provide clinicians with a comprehensive approach to sexual health care for patients with prostate cancer.Strengths & LimitationsThe strength of the study is the comprehensive evaluation of existing evidence on sexual dysfunction and rehabilitation in prostate cancer that can, along with available expert knowledge, best undergird clinical practice. Limitation is the variation in the evidence supporting interventions and the lack of research on issues facing patients with prostate cancer in low and middle-income countries.ConclusionThe guidelines document the distressing sexual sequelae of PCT, provide evidence-based recommendations for sexual rehabilitation and outline areas for future research.

Abstract Introduction Current non-invasive treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) include oral medications, intracavernosal injections, and vacuum-assisted devices. Though these therapies work well for many, a subset of patients have contraindications or are unsatisfied with these options. Restorative therapies for ED are a new frontier of treatments focused on regenerating diseased tissue and providing a potential “cure” for ED. Aim The aim of this position statement is to examine existing clinical trial data for restorative therapies and identify elements that require further research before widespread adoption. Methods A literature review was performed to identify all clinical trials performed with regenerative therapy for ED. This includes treatments such as stem cell therapy (SCT), platelet rich plasma (PRP), and restorative related technologies like low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiSWT). Main Outcome Measures Most clinical trials in restorative therapies were assessed for safety, feasibility, or efficacy. This included recording adverse events, changes in sexual function and erectile function questionnaires, and diagnostics measures. Results To date there is an absence of robust clinical data supporting the efficacy of restorative therapies regarding ED, though technologies such as LiSWT have established relative safety. Conclusions Restorative therapies are a promising technology that represents a new frontier of treatment geared towards reversing disease pathology rather than just treating symptoms. However, current published clinical studies are limited. Future work needs to be adequately powered, multi-center, randomized, sham/placebo-controlled trials in well-characterized patient populations to ensure safety and demonstrate efficacy. Until these studies are done, restorative therapies should be reserved for clinical trials and not offered in routine clinical practice.

Abstract Background Modern-day penile prostheses use infection retardant coating to decrease rates of postoperative infection, subsequently reducing explantation and revision rates as well. The Coloplast Titan models are dipped into antimicrobial solutions right before implantation, and the components used for dipping can be tailored toward the patient. Aim To compare infection, explantation, and revision rates among different dipping solutions used before implantation for patients with diabetes receiving a Coloplast Titan implant. Methods We systematically reviewed 932 patients with diabetes receiving a primary penile implant across 18 different centers from the period April 2003 to August 2018. Of those patients, 473 received a Coloplast device, whereas 459 received an AMS device. Data regarding the type of antimicrobial solution used before implantation were recorded for 468 patients receiving a Coloplast Titan, including whether or not they suffered a postoperative infection and if they underwent explantation and/or revision. Outcome rates were compared using Fisher’s exact and Pearson’s chi-square tests, and logistic regression modeling was performed to account for covariates. Outcomes The main outcome measures of this study were postoperative infection, explantation, and revision rates. Results Of the total 932 patients reviewed, 33 suffered a postoperative infection. Of 468 patients receiving Coloplast implants, there was a 3.4% infection rate. The most commonly used antibiotic combination before dipping was vancomycin + gentamicin (59.0%). There was a significantly lower rate of postoperative infection, explantation, and revision when vancomycin + gentamicin was used than those associated with the use of all other dipping solutions ([1.4% vs 6.4%; P = .004], [1.1% vs 8.3%; P < .001], and [2.5% vs 12.5; P < .001], respectively). After adjusting for age, body mass index, preoperative blood glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c, the use of other dips was an independent predictor of postoperative infection (odds ratio: 0.191; P = .049). The inclusion of rifampin in the dipping solution trended toward being a significant risk factor for infection (P = .057). Including antifungals in the dipping solution did not affect infection (P = .414), explantation (P = .421), or revision (P = .328) rates. Clinical Implications Vancomycin + gentamicin was the most efficacious combination of antibiotics used for dipping in terms of preventing postoperative infection and subsequent explantation and revision. Strengths and Limitations Data were sampled across multiple institutions providing a large sample that may be more representative of the population of interest. A key limitation of the study was its retrospective nature, which prevented us from controlling certain variables. Conclusion The use of rifampin did not provide the same type of protection, possibly representing a shift in resistance patterns of common bacteria responsible for device infection.

ABSTRACTIntroductionThe field of sexual medicine is continuously advancing, with novel outcomes reported on a regular basis. Given the rapid evolution, updated guidelines are essential to inform practicing clinicians on best practices.AimTo summarize the current literature and provide clinical guidelines on penile traction therapy, vacuum erection devices, and penile revascularization.MethodsA consensus panel was held with leading sexual medicine experts during the 2015 International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM). Relevant literature was reviewed and graded based on Oxford criteria to develop evidence-based guideline and consensus statements.Main Outcome MeasuresThe development of clinically relevant guidelines.ResultsPenile traction therapy is a viable therapy to modestly improve penile length as a primary therapy, before penile prosthesis placement in men with decreased penile length or after surgery for Peyronie's disease. It also might have a role in the acute phase of Peyronie's disease but has inconsistent outcomes in the long-term phase. Vacuum erection devices are effective in creating an erection satisfactory for intercourse, even in difficult-to-treat populations. They also might be used in the post-prostatectomy setting to maintain penile length but have insufficient evidence as a penile rehabilitation therapy. For vasculogenic erectile dysfunction, men with suspected arterial insufficiency can be evaluated with penile Duplex Doppler ultrasonography and confirmatory angiography. Penile revascularization procedures have consistently demonstrated benefits in very select patient populations; however, inadequate data exists to suggest the superiority of one technique. Men with vascular risk factors are likely poor candidates for penile revascularization, although veno-occlusive dysfunction and age are less significant. Therapies for treating primary veno-occlusive dysfunction are not recommended and should be reserved for clinical trials.ConclusionsSince the prior ICSM meeting, multiple developments have occurred in external mechanical devices and penile revascularization for the treatment of erectile and sexual dysfunction. Sexual medicine clinicians are encouraged to review and incorporate recommendations as applicable to their scope of practice.