Hernandez, J. Clavell

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.

ABSTRACTBackgroundCongenital penile curvature (CPC) is corrected surgically by various corporoplasty or tunica albuginea plication techniques, but the optimal surgical approach is not well-defined.AimTo provide a comprehensive evaluation of the published literature pertaining to outcomes with penile plication and corporoplasty techniques for surgical management of CPC. To determine if plication or corporoplasty offers superior outcomes in surgical correction of CPC.MethodsA systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Checklist. The following databases were queried from inception to March 18, 2020 to search for studies describing surgical treatment of CPC: Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus.OutcomesObjective and subjective postoperative outcomes including penile straightening, shortening, penile sensory changes, and reoperation rates for both corporoplasty and tunica albuginea plication were summarized.ResultsFifty-five articles comprising 2,956 patients with CPC who underwent a plication procedure (n = 1,375) or corporoplasty (n = 1,580) were included. The definition of “treatment success” varied widely and most often involved subjective patient reporting (22 studies; 40%) or objective assessment (15 studies; 27%). We considered curvature correction to be satisfactory if there was self-reported patient satisfaction or residual curvature after correction of <20˚. Reported rates of successful straightening ranged from 75 to 100% and 73 to 100% for plication and corporoplasty, respectively. A comprehensive and accurate assessment of surgical outcomes for CPC correction, such as satisfactory penile straightening, reoperation rates, glans sensory changes, and other complications was limited by significant inter-study heterogeneity with respect to the reporting of treatment outcomes.Clinical ImplicationsWhile both plication and corporoplasty appear to be safe and effective options in the treatment of CPC, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn with respect to treatment superiority due to low-quality study design, methodology flaws, and significant heterogeneity in reporting.Strength & LimitationsThis report represents the most comprehensive review of CPC surgical management. However, there is a significant lack of standardization in the reporting of treatment outcomes for CPC, thereby limiting the reliability of the published data summarization encompassed by our review.ConclusionBoth plication and corporoplasty demonstrate high success rates and relatively low complication rates in the treatment of CPC, albeit with low-level evidence available in most research publications. Robust comparison of the surgical techniques used to correct CPC is limited by significant variation in reporting methods used in the literature.