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
(291) Long-term Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of the Mini-Jupette Sling: 5-year Follow-up of the Original Series
Abstract Introduction Climacturia has been reported in up to 64% of patients following radical prostatectomy (RP). In 2017, a prospective multicenter, multinational, investigational pilot study was conducted examining outcomes using a novel surgical technique, the Mini-Jupette sling, for the management of men with post-RP erectile dysfunction (ED) and climacturia and/or minimal stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We sought to report the 5-year outcomes from this original cohort. Objective To assess long-term safety and efficacy of the mini-jupette sling in the treatment of ED and concomitant mild SUI and/or climacturia Methods We identified patients who were enrolled in the previous multicenter study with post-RP ED and climacturia and/or mild SUI (2 ppd) and underwent IPP insertion with simultaneous placement of a Mini-Jupette sling. Data including current ppd, improvement in climacturia, complications, need for revision of IPP or additional urinary incontinence surgery, and date of most recent follow-up were collected. Results Of the original 38 patients, 5 have since died and 10 were lost to follow-up with 23/38 (61%) patients available for evaluation of long-term outcomes. The average follow-up time was 59 months (SD= 8.8) with a mean age of 69 years (SD= 6.8). Most patients (n=21, 91%) had subjective improvement of SUI and climacturia. One patient with persistent bothersome incontinence underwent artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement in 2018 with no complications, while the other is still considering a repeat procedure due to minor but persistent SUI. The mean ppd decreased from 1.4 preoperatively to 0.3 at a mean 5 years of follow-up. Most patients reported satisfaction in their urinary symptoms with 91% and 73% reporting improvement in SUI and climacturia respectively, compared to 86% and 93% respectively in the original series. One (4.3%) patient had an IPP revision for pump malfunction. There were no device infections reported. Conclusions The Mini-Jupette sling appears to be a safe and effective procedure with durable improvements in SUI and climacturia at 5 years of follow-up. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast, Clarus Therapeutics, Antares Pharma, Acerus, Intuitive Surgical, Fidalis, Hims & Hers Health Inc
(105) A Multicenter Analysis of the AUA Recommended Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Penile Implantation Results in Higher, not Lower, Infection Risk
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.
AUA-recommended Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Primary Penile Implantation Results in a Higher, Not Lower, Risk for Postoperative Infection: A Multicenter Analysis
ABSTRACT Introduction Literature concerning corporotomy location in multi-component inflatable penile prosthetic surgery via a penoscrotal approach is scarce if not non-existent. However, corporotomy location represents an important issue that may influence immediate and long-term outcomes regarding patient and partner satisfaction as well as device durability. Objective To report practices in low- and high-volume penile implant centers regarding corporotomy location. Methods Data from 18 (13 European and 5 American) implant centers were collected retrospectively between September 1st, 2018 and August 31st, 2019. Variables included: intraoperative proximal and distal corpus cavernosum length measurement, total corporal length measurement, total penile implant cylinder length, and length of rear tip extenders. Additionally, patient characteristics, indication for penile implant, operative time, type of implant utilized, reservoir characteristics and short term complications were reported. Results 809 virgin penile implant cases were included in the analysis. Mean age of participants was 61.5 +/- 9.6 years old. In total, 299 AMS 700TM (Boston Scientific) and 510 Coloplast Titan® devices were implanted. The mean proximal/distal corporal measurement ratio during corporotomy was 0.93 +/- 0.29. A statistically significant correlation between lower proximal /distal measurement ratio and higher age (p=0.0013), lower BMI (p<0.0001), use of rear tip extenders (RTE) (p=0.04), lower RTE length (p<0.0001) and absence of diabetes (p=0.0004) was reported. In a 3-month follow up period 49 complications and 37 revision procedures were reported. Conclusions This is the first study reporting and evaluating the current practices regarding corporotomy location during IPP placement in a multicenter cohort, particularly when including such a high number of patients. Nevertheless, the retrospective design limits the study outcomes. Even in experienced hands proximal length measurement in relation to distal length measurement in penoscrotal IPP surgery is in many cases sub-optimal, particularly when the tubing-cylinder connection of each device is taken into account. Disclosure No
Impact of Antimicrobial Dipping Solutions on Postoperative Infection Rates in Patients with Diabetes Undergoing Primary Insertion of a Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis
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.
A Multicenter Investigation Examining American Urological Association Recommended Antibiotic Prophylaxis vs Nonstandard Prophylaxis in Preventing Device Infections in Penile Prosthesis Surgery in Diabetic Patients