Citations

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 A new three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis was introduced in 2019. The Rigicon Infla10® has been implanted in 26 centers by 103 physicians. Clinical investigation for FDA approval in United States will begin in late 2022. Objective We report initial survival from explantation and revision rates for infection, mechanical failure and medical problems. Data was obtained from analysis of Patient Information Forms (PIFs) submitted to the manufacturer. Patient information data was omitted prior to analysis. Methods 319 patients implanted from 1/06/2019 to 12/31/2021 were followed to analyze device durability from revision/removal and rates of reoperation for infection, mechanical failure or medical reason. Results Mean follow-up was 21.2 months with a range of 5-36 months. Mean age was 58.5. 4.38% required removal/revision. Mechanical failure was 2.5%. There were no infections reported and only two (0.6%) medical problems (component out of place). One Peyronie's patient required revision for inadequate straightening (0.03% Three patients (0.9%) requested device removal for dissatisfaction. A total of 95.6% of Rigicon Infla10® was free from explant or revision 13 months from the original implant date. Kaplan Meier analysis revealed cumulative survival of the device at 12, 24 and 36 months was 95.6%, 94.7% and 95.7% until surgical invention. Conclusions While this is a retrospective study derived from volunteered Patient Information Forms, we believe the vast majority of the early Rigicon Infla10® performed prior to 1/2022 were included in the analysis. Early results show initial durability from re-operation equivalent to contemporary, devices. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Rigicon, Boston Scientific, Coloplast.

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.

Objective To analyse data from patient information forms (PIFs) submitted to the manufacturer of a new three‐piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), the Rigicon Infla10®, to summarize early outcomes. Methods A retrospective review of PIFs from 319 patients implanted with the IPP between 6 January 2019 and 31 December 2021 was performed to assess device durability and rates of reoperation for infection, mechanical failure or medical reasons. Results The mean ± sd (range) follow‐up was 21.2 ± 11 (5–36) months and the mean ± sd patient age was 58.5 ± 8.7 years. Of the total, 4.4% of devices required removal or revision. Complications included mechanical failure (2.5%) and component migration (0.7%). No infections were observed in this series. One patient (0.4%) required revision for inadequate straightening of Peyronie's disease. Three patients (0.9%) requested device removal because of dissatisfaction. A total of 95.6% of the Rigicon Infla10 devices were free from explant or revision 21 months after the original implant date. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed the rates of cumulative survival of the device at 12, 24, 36 months were 95.6%, 94.7% and 93.7%, respectively. Conclusions The vast majority of the early Rigicon Infla10 IPPs implanted prior to January 2022 were included in this retrospective analysis of volunteered PIFs. These early results demonstrate initial durability from reoperation equivalent to that of other contemporary devices.

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.