Citations

Abstract Objective . Penile vibro-elastography (PVE) is complicated by reverberant shear wavefields from the cylindrical geometry of the corpus cavernosum (CC), which bias shear wave speed (SWS) estimates. This study evaluated local phase velocity imaging with wavefield-based filtering (LPVI-WBF) for CC stiffness assessment in post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction (ED), compared against phase gradient (PG) and time-of-flight (TOF) methods. Approach . Six patients with post-prostatectomy ED underwent PVE at four longitudinal visits (902 acquisitions). SWS was estimated in flaccid and erect states at 100, 150, and 200 Hz using LPVI-WBF, PG, and TOF. Wavefield composition was quantified via the standing wave index. Simulations evaluated accuracy and frequency stability under clean and reverberant conditions. Main results . Reverberant components dominated penile acquisitions, with traveling wave energy absent in 59% of acquisitions and mean standing wave fraction of 57 ± 17%. LPVI-WBF was the only method producing physiologically consistent estimates, with erect SWS exceeding flaccid (3.59 ± 0.48 vs 3.25 ± 0.58 m s −1 , p < 0.0001). PG and TOF yielded reversed results ( E < F, p < 0.0001). The dispersion exponent was near-zero for LPVI-WBF ( α = 0.048, p = 0.21), consistent with weakly viscoelastic tissue, while PG ( α = 0.184) and TOF ( α = 0.321) showed significant frequency dependence from reverberant contamination. Simulations confirm PG accuracy in clean wavefields but collapse under reverberant ones. Significance . LPVI-WBF produced SWS estimates consistent with expected CC biomechanics across all patients and frequencies, a criterion PG and TOF failed to satisfy. Phantom validation and multi-directional wavefield simulation are needed to establish accuracy.

Abstract Introduction The EROS (Erectile Restoration Outcomes and Satisfaction) registry provides prospective, questionnaire-based follow-up after IPP, established in 2020. Objective We sought to assess general trends in the open-ended responses portion of the questionnaire. Methods Data were collected from 2020 to 2025, with a total of 568 responses. The survey included six open-ended questions pertaining to lifestyle change since IPP, reasons not to repeat the procedure, impediments to use, dissatisfaction, what patients wish they had known more about the procedure, and other recommendations. Evaluable data included 6-month responses from Rochester, Jacksonville, and Phoenix. Results Open-ended feedback was given by 66% of patients on what they wished they had known, 54% gave other recommendations, 38% gave lifestyle feedback, 7% elaborated upon reasons not to use, 3% on reasons for dissatisfaction, and 2% on reasons they would not repeat IPP. There was an overall very positive response (“Significant Improvement”, n=74.3%) from those who underwent the IPP placement, with some patients reporting that it was far more convenient than other forms of treatment, and even increased spontaneity in their sexual lives, leading to improved relationships. Among the reported responses are increased confidence (n=39.4%), increased sexual activity (n=13.3%), and improved health and exercise levels (n=6.6%). When questioning patients about why they would not repeat the procedure and what their sources of dissatisfaction were, among those who responded to each question (n=12, n=16), the most frequently reported complaint was the exaggeration of pre-existing curves (n=41.7%, n=25.0%), particularly due to Peyronie’s disease. When questioned about what prevents use, the main responses were partner-related or due to personal problems (n=45.2%). The patients did not have many recommendations, but hoped for a better way to deflate and inflate the device (n=20.4%) and reported adequate pre-operative education and use of the pump. The table below outlines the categories of responses and the percentage of each keyword reported per question type. Conclusions In addition to standard pre-operative IPP counseling, providers should also focus on potential difficulties with device inflation/deflation, length loss (IPP not in the glans), pain/ recovery expectations, the potential for new or worsened curve (erect or flaccid), and potential changes in sensation. IPP satisfaction is high, as only 2% of patients gave responses on why they would not repeat the IPP, with many men expressing an increased level of overall confidence. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction Down-sized inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) cylinders are used in challenging penile fibrosis scenarios, such as after priapism or prior implant infection. Their role in primary penile prosthesis surgery, however, is not well studied. Objective This study aims to identify factors associated with the use of down-sized cylinders in men undergoing primary IPP placement. Methods We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study on men undergoing primary IPP surgery, categorizing them into a down-sized cylinder group (AMS 700 CXR and Coloplast NB) and a standard cylinder group (AMS 700 CX, AMS 700 LGX, and Coloplast Titan). We collected demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative variables and performed a multivariable analysis. Results 4,389 men were included in the study with a mean age of 62.3±10.3 years. Overall, 1,485 (34%) men had diabetes, and 2,131 (49%) had hypertension. Down-sized cylinders were placed in 406 men (174 CXRs, 232 NBs), while standard cylinders were placed in 3,983. Multivariable analysis indicated that down-sized cylinders were more commonly used in men with diabetes (OR 2.6 [1.9, 3.7], p&lt;0.001) and less frequently in men with hypertension (OR 0.5 [0.4, 0.7], p&lt;0.001). A history of priapism did not significantly impact the use of down-sized cylinders (p≥0.152). Sequential dilation was performed more often with the use of down-sized cylinders (OR 4.0 [2.8, 5.7], p&lt;0.001). Down-sized cylinders were associated with an increased rate of non-infectious complications (OR 1.9 [1.3, 2.9], p&lt;0.001), however, there was no significant association with implant infection (OR 2.1 [0.9, 4.6], p=0.07). Non-infectious complications occurred in 44 (25%) men with down-sized cylinders. In the down-sized group, hematomas occurred in 10 (2.5%) men and wound-related complications occurred in 7 (1.7%) men (Table 1). Cylinder-related complications occurred in 7 (1.7%) men with down-sized cylinders. Device-related malfunctions were seen in 8 (2%) men. Conclusions This study demonstrates that down-sized cylinders are more frequently used in men with diabetes and surgeons should be prepared to place down-sized cylinders in these men. Prosthetic urologists are also more likely to use down-sized cylinders in men requiring sequential dilation likely due to fibrosis or more challenging dilations. Down-sized cylinders are associated with a low overall complication rate. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Intuitive Surgical, Fidelis, Urofill, Boston Scientific, Coloplast, Cynosure, Antares Pharma, Clarus Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharma; Endo Pharma.

Abstract Background To date, no scoring system has adequately defined clinical efficacy of erectile dysfunction (ED) therapies when evaluating differences between cohorts or in meta-analytic studies. Aim To outline the minimal criteria required for any therapy to be considered clinically effective in the treatment of ED. Methods An analytic review was performed of standardized ED questionnaires, with a particular emphasis placed on the International Index of Erectile Function, Erectile Function Domain (IIEF-EFD), and the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) concept. The data were used to create a societal position statement and recommendations on best practices within clinical trials to determine treatment efficacy. Outcomes The SMSNA provided 6 key statements and recommendations to suggest best practices and define minimal thresholds for improvements required for an ED therapy to be considered clinically effective. Results The IIEF-EFD currently represents the preferred standardized questionnaire to evaluate for changes in erectile function post-treatment and is the only questionnaire adequate to assess primary outcomes. To claim efficacy, investigational treatments must demonstrate MCID between cohorts (eg, 2-, 5-, or 7-point median improvements between groups among mild, moderate, or severe ED cohorts) in prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, and adequately powered studies. In studies employing mixed-severity ED populations, a method of calculating an adjusted MCID was proposed based on statistical weighting principles. Similarly, a novel method for analyzing differences between cohorts in meta-analytic studies was presented to incorporate the concept of MCID. Based on these principles, the SMSNA would not support efficacy of a therapy based on statistical significance in a meta-analytic study alone. Similarly, studies claiming efficacy utilizing responder approaches (ie, statistically higher percentage of men achieving MCID between cohorts) would not be acceptable unless the median difference between groups on the IIEF-EFD achieved MCID. Clinical Implications The current position statement provides important, evidence-based data and scientific principles to help define what may be considered as an effective therapy in the treatment of ED. This framework provides a basis that decision-makers, clinicians, and patients may use to help differentiate clinically effective therapies. Strengths & Limitations The published literature is limited by a lack of validated instruments and data defining MCID for ED therapies between cohorts and with meta-analytic studies. The current position statement provides important guidance on these areas of ambiguity pending further, definitive data. Conclusion The current position statement provides detailed guidance on key criteria required to conclude efficacy of therapies used to treat ED.