Citations

Abstract Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery is a well-established treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). There is little information in the literature regarding the utilization of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary and revision IPP surgeries. Objective We investigated the patterns of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis among a large multinational cohort of primary and revision IPP surgeries. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 5400 patients (4187 primary IPP patients and 849 revision IPP patients) from our Prosthetic Urology Multi-Institutional Partnership (PUMP) institutions. Usage data for intravenous (IV), preoperative oral, and postoperative oral antimicrobials were analyzed. We specifically assessed patient profiles, antimicrobial selection, and antimicrobial duration. Multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to identify significant variations between primary and revision surgeries. Results For patients undergoing primary IPP placement, 81.9% received IV antibiotics for <24 hours whereas 18.1% received IV antibiotics for >24 hours. Preoperative oral antimicrobials were used in 59.4% of patients and 99.4% received postoperative oral antimicrobials. The overall infection rate for primary implants was 2%. Notably, quinolone administration shows a higher postoperative infection rate (11.4%) compared to gentamicin (1.9%), cephalosporin (0%), and vancomycin (1.0%). Multivariable regression analysis identifies factors such as a history of infection, diabetes, and priapism as predictors for postoperative infections. Furthermore, the study finds that perioperative antifungal use is associated with a decreased risk of infection. Conclusions This study provides valuable insights into the patterns of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. Duration, type, and route of antibiotics given preoperatively or postoperatively do not affect postoperative infection rates among high volume prosthetic urologists. Giving IV antibiotics for more than 24 hours does not affect postoperative infection. Perioperative antifungals are a protective factor. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast, Clarus Therapeutics, Antares Pharma, Acerus.

Abstract Introduction Intracavernosal injection (ICI) therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) carries a risk of corporal fibrosis, potentially making placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis more difficult. Prostate cancer treatment may also induce corporal fibrosis. Objective To assess whether a history of ICI or prostate cancer treatment is associated with complications following IPP placement. Methods A retrospective cohort study of primary IPP cases from 2016–2021 across 16 institutions. Patients were stratified by history of ICI and between-group differences in risk factors were assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess for predictors of intraoperative complications, postoperative non-infectious complications and postoperative infection. Results A total of 2540 patients met inclusion criteria of which 781 (30.8%) had a history of ICI. Patients with a history of ICI tended to be older (mean 63 vs 64 years, p=0.002) and were more likely to have history of radical prostatectomy (21.0% vs. 32.1%, p<0.001) and/or radiation (5.51% vs 10.9%, p<0.001). On multivariable regression, a history of ICI, prostatectomy, and radiation were all significant predictors of intraoperative complications (OR 2.11, p=0.03; OR 2.27, p=0.03; OR 2.40, p=0.04, respectively). A history of ICI and patient age were predictors of non-infectious postoperative complications (OR 1.44, p=0.02, OR 1.02, p=0.004 respectively)). None of the variables were significant predictors of infection. Conclusions In men undergoing IPP placement, a history of ICI is associated with an increased risk of both intraoperative and postoperative, non-infectious complications. Prostate cancer treatment with radiation or surgery is independently associated with increased risk of intraoperative complications. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: D.O. has served as a consultant for Coloplast, Intuitive Surgical, and Fidelis. P.P. has served as a consultant for Coloplast, Boston Scientific, and Urofill. M.S. has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Coloplast. J.S. has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Coloplast. F.A.Y. has served as a consultant for Coloplast, Cynosure, Antares Pharma, Clarus Pharmaceuticals, and Acerus Pharma. M.S.G. has served as a consultant for Coloplast. The other authors disclose no conflicts.

Abstract Introduction Intracavernosal injection (ICI) therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) carries a risk of corporal fibrosis, potentially making placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis more difficult. Prostate cancer treatment may also induce corporal fibrosis. Objective To assess whether a history of ICI or prostate cancer treatment is associated with complications following IPP placement. Methods A retrospective cohort study of primary IPP cases from 2016-2021 across 16 institutions. Patients were stratified by history of ICI and between-group differences in risk factors were assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess for predictors of intraoperative complications, postoperative non-infectious complications and postoperative infection. Results A total of 2540 patients met inclusion criteria of which 781 (30.8%) had a history of ICI. Patients with a history of ICI tended to be older (mean 63 vs 64 years, p=0.002) and were more likely to have history of radical prostatectomy (21.0% vs. 32.1%, p<0.001) and/or radiation (5.51% vs 10.9%, p<0.001). On multivariable regression, a history of ICI, prostatectomy, and radiation were all significant predictors of intraoperative complications (OR 2.11, p=0.03; OR 2.27, p=0.03; OR 2.40, p=0.04, respectively). A history of ICI and patient age were predictors of non-infectious postoperative complications (OR 1.44, p=0.02, OR 1.02, p=0.004 respectively)). None of the variables were significant predictors of infection. Conclusions In men undergoing IPP placement, a history of ICI is associated with an increased risk of both intraoperative and postoperative, non-infectious complications. Prostate cancer treatment with radiation or surgery is independently associated with increased risk of intraoperative complications. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: D.O. has served as a consultant for Coloplast, Intuitive Surgical, and Fidelis. P.P. has served as a consultant for Coloplast, Boston Scientific, and Urofill. M.S. has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Coloplast. J.S. has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Coloplast. F.A.Y. has served as a consultant for Coloplast, Cynosure, Antares Pharma, Clarus Pharmaceuticals, and Acerus Pharma. M.S.G. has served as a consultant for Coloplast. The other authors disclose no conflicts.

Abstract Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement is associated with high postoperative patient satisfaction. Patients often express concerns about postoperative penile length. There is scant evidence in the literature of clinical and surgical factors that predict IPP length. Objective To evaluate predictors of cylinder length for men undergoing primary IPP placement in a large multicenter cohort. Methods Patients undergoing primary IPP placement for treatment of erectile dysfunction at 16 high-volume implant centers were included. All patients had preoperative demographics, surgical characteristics, and device length retrospectively collected at their respective institutions and combined for analysis. Descriptive statistics were reported for the full group. Univariate analysis was utilized to isolate variables significantly associated with device length and all variables reaching p<0.1 were included in linear regression modeling. Results 3,953 men underwent primary IPP placement. The mean age was 61.8±10.4 years and BMI was 29.8±4.2 kg/m2. The mean total device length was 20.6±2.1cm. 1291 (32.7%) had diabetes mellitus, 641 (16.2%) were smokers, 705 (17.8%) had a prior radical prostatectomy, 195 (4.9%) had prior radiation, 549 (13.9%) had Peyronie’s disease, and 884 (22.4%) had a history of intracavernosal injections. In univariate analysis, BMI (B=0.05, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.07, p<0.001), a history of Peyronie’s disease (20.4 vs 20.6cm, p=0.02), and use of intracavernosal injection (20.7 v 20.9cm, p=0.02) were predictors of shorter total device length. Use of rear tip extenders (20.7 v 20.0cm, p<0.001), penoscrotal approach (21.0 v 20.3, p<0.001), and single corporal dilation (20.8 v 20.4cm, p<0.001) were associated with longer length. In multivariable analysis, a history of Peyronie’s disease (B=-0.29, 95%CI -0.47 to -0.11, p=0.002) and greater BMI (B=0.05, 95%CI 0.03 to 0.07, p<0.001) were predictors of shorter total device length. Independent predictors of longer device length were penoscrotal approach (B=-0.85, 95%CI -1.03 to -0.65, p<0.001), rear tip extender use (B=1.00, 95%CI 0.84 to 1.17, p<0.001), and single corporal dilation (B=-0.5, 95%CI -0.67 to -0.34, p<0.001). Conclusions In this series, Peyronie’s disease and greater BMI are independent predictors of shorter IPP device length, while use of rear tip extenders, single corporal dilation, and penoscrotal approach are independent predictors of longer device length. These results are important in counseling patients regarding expectations of postoperative length. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Intuitive Surgical, Fidelis, Urofill, Boston Scientific, Endo Pharma, Coloplast, Cynosure, Antares Pharma, Clarus Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharma

Abstract Introduction Predictors of intraoperative corporal perforation and delayed cylinder complications in inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement have not been well-delineated in the literature. Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) can offer high satisfaction rates of patients, but this procedure is not without complications that can be encountered intraoperatively and postoperatively. Particularly, predictors of intraoperative corporal perforation and delayed cylinder complications in IPP placement have not been well-delineated in the literature. Objective We evaluated our retrospective multi-institutional database of IPP surgeries performed by expert implant surgeons to identify risk factors that are predictive of the development of these non-infectious complications. Methods IPP cases performed by sixteen international implanters from 2016-2021 were identified. All primary and revision cases were included. Salvage cases for infection were excluded. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Poor corporal integrity (PCI) was defined as intraoperative corporal complications (proximal and/or distal perforation of the corpora, corporal crossover) or postoperative corporal complications (cylinder erosion, extrusion, impending erosion, or deformity). Risk factor analysis and multivariate analysis were performed to identify predictors of PCI. Results A total of 5406 IPP cases across 16 separate institutions were assessed. There were 163 (3.0%, mean age 64) cases of PCI. Of the 156 complications that occurred, 101 (64.7%) occurred intraoperatively, while 55 (35.3%) occurred postoperatively. The rates of diabetes (p=0.669), vascular disease (p=0.054), and history of intracavernosal injections (p=0.111) all had no statistically significant effect on corporal integrity. Patients with PCI tended to have hypertension (p=0.045), current smoking (p=0.03), history of IPP infection (p<0.001), and history of shunt for priapism (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, predictors of PCI include hypertension (OR 1.64 (1.09-2.47), p=0.018), history of IPP infection (OR 4.41 (2.52-7.84), p<0.001), and age (OR 1.02 (1.00-1.04), p=0.027). Obesity was found to be protective (OR 0.63 (0.42-0.95), p=0.027). Conclusions Our multicenter analysis found that hypertension, current smoking, history of IPP infection and age were risk factors for complications associated with poor corporal integrity. Recognizing these risk factors preoperatively can allow for improved patient-specific counseling and changes in surgical strategy to potentially prevent these complications. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast and Boston Scientific.

Abstract Introduction In primary implant patients without significant corporal fibrosis, penile implant surgical technique varies in implementation of either single dilation (SingD) or sequential dilation (SeqD). Vigorous debate exists regarding both methods, but there is no robust evidence supporting one technique over the other in the literature. Objective We compared the rates of intraoperative complications and postoperative outcomes from a large international database of inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) performed by expert implant surgeons to determine if there were any significant differences in rates between SingD and SeqD. Methods We analyzed IPP cases performed by international implanters from 2016-2021. All primary implant cases were included, while revision cases, salvage operations, and patients with evidence of corporal fibrosis were excluded. Intraoperative complications and postoperative noninfectious outcomes were assessed between the two groups. These included proximal/distal perforation and cylinder crossover. Results After exclusion based on aforementioned criteria, we identified 3045 patients who underwent IPP. After 1:1 propensity matching of both groups, we analyzed 572 patients who underwent SingD and 572 patients who underwent SeqD. Between the two groups, more men of non-Caucasian race underwent SingD vs SeqD (p<0.001). There was a significant difference in cylinder length in the SeqD group vs the SingD group (20cm ± 1.5 vs. 20 cm ±2 respectively, p=0.018). There were 8 (0.7%) intraoperative complications in total, 7 in the SeqD group and 1 in the SingD group (p=0.034). Of these intraoperative complications, 3 (37.5%) patients who underwent SeqD sustained a proximal perforation, 3 (37.5%) sustained distal crossover, and 1 (12.5%) sustained proximal crossover. 1 patient (12.5%) with intraoperative complication who underwent SingD sustained a proximal perforation. Postoperatively, 78 (82%) of complications were in the SeqD group and 17 (18%) in the SingD group (p<0.001). Of these postoperative complications, there were 15 patients with bleeding or hematoma, of which 14 were in the SeqD group vs 1 in the SingD group (p<0.001). Of the 35 patients who were noted to have device-related malfunction, 29 underwent SeqD and 6 underwent SingD (p<0.001). Postoperative complications were more related to technical error in the SeqD vs the SingD group (11 patients and 1 patient respectively, p<0.011). On multivariate analysis, prior radical prostatectomy was predictive of intraoperative complications (OR 4.59 with IQR 1.39-15.16, p=0.024), while larger cylinder size seemed to be protective (OR 0.66 with IQR 0.50-0.89, p=0.006). On multivariate analysis, SeqD was predictive of postoperative complications (5.16 with IQR 3.01-8.83, p<0.001), as was history of priapism (4.15 with IQR 1.30-13.29, p=0.017). Patients who undergo SeqD may be calibrated by the surgeon to have more complex corpora, which could explain higher complication rates. We identified 3045 patients who underwent IPP. Conclusions In our international multicenter assessment of primary IPPs without corporal fibrosis performed by expert surgeons, patients undergoing single dilation appear to have slight benefit in total cylinder length. Sequential dilation may confer greater risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications, including bleeding and hematoma. Single dilation is a safe technique for primary inflatable penile prosthesis. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast and Boston Scientific

Abstract Introduction The American Urological Association (AUA) recommendations on antibiotic prophylaxis in penile implant surgery are based on low quality evidence and expert opinion. Recent evidence suggests the recommended regimens may be suboptimal. Objective To determine if the AUA recommended antibiotic regimen (vancomycin + gentamicin) for primary penile implant surgery is associated with a higher infection risk than non-standard regimens. Methods We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing primary IPP surgery. Patients undergoing revision surgery or with a history of IPP placement were excluded. Additionally, patients who underwent concomitant procedures for Peyronie’s disease or stress urinary incontinence were excluded. Patients were divided into those receiving standard AUA antibiotic prophylaxis (vancomycin + gentamicin) and those receiving any other (non-standard) antibiotic prophylaxis. The time to postoperative device explanation due to infection via a Cox regression model, the microorganisms involved, and the management of patients with device infection were evaluated. A subgroup analysis to identify the appropriate dosage of gentamicin was also performed. Results 4,161 patients underwent primary IPP placement (2,411 received vancomycin + gentamicin and 1,750 received other regimens). The infection rate was similar between groups, 1.0 vs 1.2% for standard vs non-standard prophylaxis. In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, the use of vancomycin + gentamicin (HR: 2.74, 95%CI: 1.38-5.41, p=0.004) and diabetes (HR: 1.87, 95%CI: 1.03-3.39, p=0.04) were significantly associated with higher risk of device explantation due to infection. Concomitant infusion of antifungals (HR: 0.08, 95%CI: 0.03-0.19, p<0.001) was associated with lower risk of infection. Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli were the most frequently cultured microorganisms. Device infection was most commonly managed with salvage using a malleable prosthesis (40.4%). In patients of both groups receiving gentamicin as part of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, the use of weight-based gentamicin compared to 80 mg gentamicin was associated with similar risk of device explantation due to infection (HR: 2.88, 95% CI: 0.83 to 10, p = 0.1). Conclusions Vancomycin + gentamicin for antibiotic prophylaxis in primary penile implant surgery is independently associated with a higher infection risk than non-standard antibiotic regimens while antifungal use is associated with lower infection risk. There does not appear to be a difference in weight-based vs low dose (80mg) gentamicin on infection risk. Our results further demonstrate the importance of antifungal use in prophylaxis regimens. Additionally, a critical review of the recommended prophylactic regimens is needed. Tailoring individual regimens to local antibiograms may provide the best infection prevention. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast, Boston Scientific, Antares Pharma, Clarus Therapeutics, Cynosure, Promescent, Sprout, Viome.

Abstract Objective To update the “Testosterone Therapy in Men With Androgen Deficiency Syndromes” guideline published in 2010. Participants The participants include an Endocrine Society–appointed task force of 10 medical content experts and a clinical practice guideline methodologist. Evidence This evidence-based guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to describe the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. The task force commissioned two systematic reviews and used the best available evidence from other published systematic reviews and individual studies. Consensus Process One group meeting, several conference calls, and e-mail communications facilitated consensus development. Endocrine Society committees and members and the cosponsoring organization were invited to review and comment on preliminary drafts of the guideline. Conclusions We recommend making a diagnosis of hypogonadism only in men with symptoms and signs consistent with testosterone (T) deficiency and unequivocally and consistently low serum T concentrations. We recommend measuring fasting morning total T concentrations using an accurate and reliable assay as the initial diagnostic test. We recommend confirming the diagnosis by repeating the measurement of morning fasting total T concentrations. In men whose total T is near the lower limit of normal or who have a condition that alters sex hormone–binding globulin, we recommend obtaining a free T concentration using either equilibrium dialysis or estimating it using an accurate formula. In men determined to have androgen deficiency, we recommend additional diagnostic evaluation to ascertain the cause of androgen deficiency. We recommend T therapy for men with symptomatic T deficiency to induce and maintain secondary sex characteristics and correct symptoms of hypogonadism after discussing the potential benefits and risks of therapy and of monitoring therapy and involving the patient in decision making. We recommend against starting T therapy in patients who are planning fertility in the near term or have any of the following conditions: breast or prostate cancer, a palpable prostate nodule or induration, prostate-specific antigen level > 4 ng/mL, prostate-specific antigen > 3 ng/mL in men at increased risk of prostate cancer (e.g., African Americans and men with a first-degree relative with diagnosed prostate cancer) without further urological evaluation, elevated hematocrit, untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea, severe lower urinary tract symptoms, uncontrolled heart failure, myocardial infarction or stroke within the last 6 months, or thrombophilia. We suggest that when clinicians institute T therapy, they aim at achieving T concentrations in the mid-normal range during treatment with any of the approved formulations, taking into consideration patient preference, pharmacokinetics, formulation-specific adverse effects, treatment burden, and cost. Clinicians should monitor men receiving T therapy using a standardized plan that includes: evaluating symptoms, adverse effects, and compliance; measuring serum T and hematocrit concentrations; and evaluating prostate cancer risk during the first year after initiating T therapy.