Citations

Abstract Background Penile cosmetic enhancement procedures have been performed for many years with varying success. However, they have historically been relegated to niche areas of sexual medicine, with limited data, and have not achieved mainstream adoption. More recently, the topic has been increasingly discussed within academic congresses due to availability of novel techniques, therapies, and procedures. Given their distinctive nature, the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) felt that it was pertinent to develop formal position statements to help guide both patients and sexual medicine providers on the current state of the scientific literature and to give recommendations for future research. Aim The study sought to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for injection and surgical procedures designed to lengthen, augment, or otherwise cosmetically enhance the penis. Methods A review was performed of all scientific literature listed in PubMed from inception through December 2023 relating to penile cosmetic enhancement procedures. Only invasive (injection/surgery) therapies were included due to their distinct risk-benefit profile compared with more conservative treatments (eg, vacuum erection devices, penile traction devices). Similar therapies were categorized, with pertinent data summarized and used to help create relevant position statements. All statements were expert opinion only and were based on analyses of the potential risks and benefits of the specific therapies. Outcomes A total of 6 position statements were issued relating to 5 distinct sexual medicine cosmetic enhancement procedures. Results A consensus opinion was reached by SMSNA leadership on the state of injection/surgical penile cosmetic enhancement procedures as of 2024. Key topic areas addressed included injectable soft tissue fillers, suspensory ligament division, graft-and-flap procedures, silicone sleeve implants, and sliding/slicing techniques. Distinct recommendations were tailored to each therapy and were based solely on the current state of the literature. It is anticipated that future studies will further inform position statements and will lead to ongoing modifications. Clinical Implications The current position statements provide both patients and clinicians evidence-based, expert recommendations on best practices relating to penile cosmetic enhancement procedures. Strengths and Limitations Strengths include the use of an expert panel of sexual medicine clinicians, consensus design, and summary of existing literature. Limitations include expert opinion and limited research on the topic. Conclusion The current SMSNA position statements provide evidence-based, consensus opinions on the appropriate role for penile augmentation and cosmetic procedures in 2024.

Abstract Introduction Limited data are available on the efficacy of collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) on Peyronie’s disease (PD) in men with ventral curvatures. Our team previously published a limited series of outcomes of 25 men with ventral curvatures who underwent CCH. Given the paucity of data available, we sought to provide an updated series of outcomes in this important cohort. Objective To report outcomes of men undergoing CCH injections for PD based on initial direction of curvature, including absolute and percent improvement in curvature, adverse events (AE), and other subjective outcomes. Methods A prospective registry has been maintained of all men undergoing CCH injections since 2014. All men underwent curvature assessments and subjective questioning at the time of initial evaluation and prior to each subsequent series of injections. The method of injection and subsequent protocol have changed in a stepwise fashion since 2014 and currently include injecting 0.9 mg (diluted to 0.8 mL) on back-to-back days, injecting into the point of max curve with an erection on day 1, performing in-office modeling on day 2, utilizing Restorex traction beginning on day 2, and wrapping for 4-8 days depending on results. To review outcomes, clinicopathologic data were abstracted from the registry including relevant history, exam, and data obtained at the time of penile ultrasound and curvature assessment. Outcomes are reported using a “Most Recent” definition (most recent data point used, regardless if the patient continues or finished treatment) and “Completed 8 or Satisfied” (only included if the patient indicated that they were done with treatment or had finished the full 8 injections). Results A total of 560 patients (mean age 57 years) were identified from March 2014 through Feb 2023 and comprise our study cohort. Overall, 85 men had a ventral component to their curvature and 475 non-ventral. Baseline demographics and clinical factors were similar between groups, with the exception of penile length (ventral 14.0 cm, non-ventral 12.0 cm, p<0.0001), Psych and Physical subdomain of the Peyronie’s Disease Questionnaire (10 vs 12, p=0.03), and prior treatment with CCH (3% vs 16%, p=0.03). Following treatment, men in the ventral cohort exhibited possibly greater improvements in curvature (Most Recent Definition: -25 degrees vs -24, p=0.08; 45% vs 34%, p=0.03; Completed 8 or Satisfied Definition: -35 vs -25, p<0.05, 48% vs 38%, p=0.11). However, all other outcomes were similar between cohorts, including differences in subdomains of the IIEF and PDQ, use of traction therapy, and adverse events including ecchymoses, hematomas, and popping sensations. Importantly, no urethral complications were experienced in the ventral group. Conclusions Men with ventral PD may be effectively treated with CCH with similar AEs compared to other directions. Ventral curvatures are likely associated with greater overall curvature improvements compared to other directions. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Endo - Matt Ziegelmann.

Abstract Introduction Since the FDA approval of Collagenase Clostridium Histolyticum (CCH) for the treatment of Peyronie’s Disease (PD), there has been significant debate as to its role and comparable efficacy in relation to surgical therapies. We have previously published results comparing the two therapies at 3-months post-treatment. Objective To compare various objective and subjective outcome measures at 12-months post-treatment between men undergoing CCH or surgery for PD. Methods A randomized, controlled trial (NCT04786106) is ongoing. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either CCH + traction (RestoreX) + sildenafil or penile surgery (plication and/or incision and grafting) + traction + sildenafil for PD. Objective, standardized (International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF] and Peyronie’s Disease Questionnaire [PDQ]), and non-standardized assessments were obtained at baseline, and post-treatment at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. Key outcomes included differences in standardized questionnaires, penile curvature, penile length, subsequent interventions, and non-standardized questionnaire responses. Curvature was measured in two planes and summed to provide a composite curvature. Penile length was measured from pubic symphysis to corona. All adjunctive therapies were stopped at 3-months post treatment completion (i.e., traction and sildenafil). Results A total of 40 men were randomized, with 38 completing treatment and 12-month data available on 28 men (CCH=12, surgery=16). Mean age at enrollment was 54.7 years, PD duration 37.4 months (mo), composite curvature 73.1 degrees (deg), and penile length 12.7 cm. All baseline variables were statistically similar between cohorts. Regarding primary outcomes, at 12-months post-treatment, CCH men reported being very satisfied 36%, satisfied 27%, and neutral 36% with none dissatisfied. Men in the Surgery cohort reported 14% very satisfied, 64% satisfied, 0% neutral, and 21% dissatisfied (p<0.01). For secondary outcomes, the median differences between CCH and Surgery were: IIEF-EFD (+2.0 vs +2.0, p=0.82), PDQ-physical (-5 vs -5, p=0.77, note, lower is better for PDQ scales), PDQ-pain (-1 vs 0, p=0.92), PDQ-bother (-7 vs -3, p=0.12), length change (+1.0 vs -0.13 cm, p<0.05), curvature absolute change (-37.5 vs -53.8 degrees, p=0.17), and curvature % improvement (55% vs 82%, p=0.15). Compared to 3-month data, Surgery men experienced greater curve recurrence (objective: Surgery +5 degrees vs -5 degrees CCH, p<0.05), decreased subjective penile length 62% vs 9% CCH (p<0.01) and decreased sensitivity (54% vs 27% CCH, p<0.05). Both groups reported similar rates of improved sexual function (CCH 82% vs 64%, p=0.30) and change in erectile function (CCH 55% improved, 9% worsened; Surgery 62% improved, 8% worsened, p=0.53). Both groups were also equally satisfied with their curvature (CCH 55% vs Surgery 54%, p=0.97), despite greater overall curve improvements in the Surgery arm. 75% of CCH men reported improved indentation/hourglass vs 56% Surgery, p<0.05. Both groups reported similar rates of being willing to do their treatment again (CCH 73% vs 77%, p=0.64), while 91% of CCH men would recommend it to a friend vs 77% Surgery (p=0.35). Conclusions Preliminary data suggests that when compared to surgery at 12-months, CCH men were more likely to be very satisfied, experience penile length increases, and less likely to experience dissatisfaction, curvature recurrence, and decreased penile sensation. Disclosure Yes, this is sponsored by industry/sponsor: Endo Pharmaceuticals. Clarification: Industry funding only - investigator initiated and executed study. Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Matthew Ziegelmann - Endo Pharmaceuticals.

Abstract Introduction Limited data currently exist on the role and efficacy of additional series of collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) injections among Peyronie’s disease (PD) men who have previously failed a first series of injections. We have previously published outcomes of men undergoing a novel protocol for CCH injections and which demonstrated significant improvements compared to original IMPRESS I and II techniques. We therefore sought to evaluate results of men who had previously failed CCH injections to determine if they would respond to a repeat course using a more aggressive protocol. Objective To evaluate outcomes of a novel protocol for CCH injections among men who had previously failed 6-8 CCH injections using a traditional approach. Methods A randomized, controlled trial (NCT05108558) is ongoing. All participants had previously failed to achieve ≥20% curvature improvement with 6-8 prior CCH injections. Men were randomized 3:1 to receive either CCH + traction (RestoreX) + sildenafil (treatment) up front or initial observation followed by treatment (controls). Outcomes were compared between treatment and control groups. Key measures included objective curve improvements and standardized/non-standardized questionnaires, with assessments obtained at baseline, 6-weeks after completion of CCH (treatment arm), after the no treatment period (controls), and at 1 year. Results A total of 22/40 men have been randomized to date, with 11 having fully completed treatment. Mean age was 64 years, with a median PD duration of 24 months. Mean composite baseline curvature was 80 degrees, with 55% having hourglass or indentation deformities, 10% calcification, median baseline IIEF-EFD 15, and 60% able to have penetrative intercourse. Median estimated improvement with the prior CCH series was 0% (IQR 0, 19.4), and the median number of prior injections was 8. The majority of men were dissatisfied with their prior series of CCH (60% vs 30% satisfied, 10% neutral). Of the 11 men who had completed the study protocol, 64% required 1 series, 9% 2 series, 18% 3 series, and 9% 4 series. Compared to the no treatment arm, treated men experienced significantly greater improvements (mean 78 degree vs 15, p=0.01). IIEF-EFD was also improved more in treated men (+4.3 vs -5.7, p<0.05). 100% of men reported a subjective major improvement in curvature, with the average subjectively estimated improvement 91%. 67% reported improved sensitivity (33% no change), while 60% reported improved or no change in erectile function, with 20% unsure, and 20% somewhat worse. Post-treatment, 83% of men were very satisfied with CCH as a treatment and 17% somewhat satisfied. Conclusions Repeating CCH using a novel protocol after an initially unsuccessful course of CCH achieves significant improvements in curvature and patient satisfaction. Additional data, including external validation, are warranted. Disclosure Yes, this is sponsored by industry/sponsor: Endo Pharmaceuticals. Clarification: Industry funding only - investigator initiated and executed study. Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Matthew Ziegelmann - Endo Pharmaceuticals.

Abstract Introduction There has been significant ongoing debate on the role and utility of prednisone post-vasectomy reversal to improve sperm counts and long-term patency. However, there are relatively limited data available on the efficacy, with essentially no data available on pregnancy outcomes. Objective To report outcomes of randomized, clinical trial evaluating varying protocols for prednisone administration post vasectomy reversal. Methods A randomized, controlled trial was performed (NCT04788823) with an anticipated 100 men randomized to one of four prednisone protocols post vasectomy reversal: no treatment (Control), prednisone 20 mg taper over 1 month beginning the first month post-op and then every other month x 6 months (High Dose), prednisone 20 mg taper over 1 month if declining sperm counts or a 0 count were identified (PRN), and prednisone 5 mg daily x 1 week, followed by no treatment x 1 week, continued for 6 months (Low Dose). Randomization tables were created a priori to ensure an equal representation of differing durations of time since the original vasectomy as well as an equal distribution of VV/VV vs VV/EV vs EV/EV procedures. All men had semen analyses obtained monthly for a first 12 months. Surveys were sent periodically to follow-up on subsequent pregnancies. Inclusion criteria included having a female partner <36 years of age with no known fertility factors. Results A total of 75 men were ultimately enrolled due to interim findings suggesting inferiority of the High Dose and PRN treatment arms and decision to close those arms before completing full enrollment. Final enrollment included: Control (n=25), High Dose (n=14), PRN (n=11), and Low Dose (n=25). The mean patient age was 38.5 years, mean partner age 29.6, and mean time since vasectomy 6.3 years (SD 5.0). 82% of men underwent VV/VV, while 15% VV/EV, and 3% EV/EV. All men underwent successful anastomosis bilaterally with no cases of one-sided or no anastomosis performed. At a mean follow-up of 16.5 months (range 7.6 to 25.1), an overall patency (sperm observed on sample) rate of 93% was noted (Control 96%, High Dose 93%, PRN 100%, Low Dose 88%, p=0.41). The mean sperm concentration post-op was 34.4 million/ml (Control 24.0, High Dose 38.4, PRN 21.0, Low Dose 49.8, p=0.33). Patency rates at 6- and 12-months were: 6-months (Control 88%, High Dose 80%, PRN 83%, Low Dose 94%, p=0.75); 12-months (Control 75%, High Dose 71%, PRN 75%, Low Dose 91%). Mean sperm concentrations at 6- and 12-months were: 6-months (Control 15.7, High Dose 21.5, PRN 6.9, Low Dose 25.7, p=0.50); 12-months (Control 12.6 million/ml, High Dose 17.1, PRN 36.1, Low Dose 50.4, p=0.64) At the 6-month post-op time point, the overall rate of pregnancy was 47%, with notable differences between cohorts: Control 57%, High Dose 10%, PRN 38%, and Low Dose 67%, p=0.02. No patients discontinued prednisone due to side effects. Conclusions Prednisone taper protocols appear to reduce the likelihood for pregnancy following vasectomy reversal. Use of low-dose prednisone results in non-statistically higher rates of patency at 6- and 12-months, mean sperm concentration at 6- and 12-months, and pregnancy at 6-months. Overall results suggest superiority of either no prednisone post-vasectomy reversal or a low dose protocol but argue against the use of higher dosages at any time due to its negative impacts on pregnancy rates despite maintained sperm counts. Disclosure No.

Abstract Introduction An iteration of artificial intelligence (AI), large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have recently gained popularity as a potential educational resource for patients, students, and researchers. LLMs utilize deep learning algorithms to predict the next word in a sequence based on a data library of 300 billion words. Recent studies have shown that while LLMs provide useful information, they are limited due to producing false and nonsensical information. A focus of studies has been on the utility of ChatGPT as an educational resource to patients and learners; however, no study has investigated the utilization of ChatGPT to write a scientific review. AI- generated systematic reviews would be valuable to the dynamic field of urology, especially in terms of research and innovation. Objective Considering the limitations of ChatGPT in performing data analysis, the aim of this project was to assess the utility of AI in constructing introductions of a systematic review on urologic issues and to compare these AI-generated introductions to published introductions written by humans. Methods ChatGPT (4.0), available at www.chat.openai.com, was used to construct three introductions to three different systematic reviews on the following topics: testosterone therapy and cardiovascular events, safety and efficacy of noninvasive therapies for Peyronie’s disease, and erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy. Introductions from published systematic reviews in each of the above topics were also obtained. Five different experts in these topics, who were blinded to which introductions were AI generated, reviewed then assessed the introductions for the following parameters: completeness, engagement, accuracy, logic, and clarity of objective. Introductions were assessed for baseline literary differences as well. Results There were no significant differences in the words, characters, number of sentences, and length of sentences between AI-generated introductions compared to those written by humans. There was a statistically significant difference in word length, with AI having a lower average of word length. AI scored significantly higher on average in the categories of completeness and engagement. We did not observe a significant difference between the two groups in the other categories. These observed findings demonstrate that AI can synthesize urologic literature (sexual medicine/men’s health) and generate introductions of a systematic review that are minimally noninferior and possibly superior regarding engagement and completeness. The limitations from this study include a small sample size (5) and the exclusive focus on AI-generated introductions rather than other AI-generated sections of a systematic review. Conclusions Our study reveals that ChatGPT, as an LLM, can provide a noninferior, possibly superior, introduction to a systematic review on topics of urologic sexual medicine and men’s health. As more facets of AI are developed, such as data integration and analysis, AI could be used to generate entire systematic reviews noninferior to those written by humans. Ethical principles of using AI in scientific literature should be examined and discussed prior to the development of more enhanced LLMs. Disclosure No.