Trends in Penile Prosthesis Implantation and Analysis of Predictive Factors for Removal

Overview

Journal World J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2018 Sep 26

PMID 30251052

Citations 13

Authors

Kai Li

Eileen R Brandes

Steven L Chang

Jeffrey J Leow

Benjamin I Chung

Ye Wang

Jairam R Eswara

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to analyze patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and clinical risk factors which predict penile prosthesis removal. We also examine costs of penile prosthesis removal and trends in inflatable versus non-inflatable penile prostheses implantation in the USA from 2003 to 2015.

Methods: Cross-sectional analysis from Premier Perspective Database was completed using data from 2003 to 2015. We compared the relative proportion of inflatable versus non-inflatable penile prostheses implanted. We separated the prosthesis removal group based on indication for removal-Group 1 (infection), Group 2 (mechanical complication), and Group 3 (all explants). All groups were compared to a control group of patients with penile implants who were never subsequently explanted. Multivariate analysis was performed to analyze patient and hospital factors which predicted removal. Cost comparison was performed between the explant groups.

Results: There were 5085 penile prostheses implanted with a stable relative proportion of inflatable versus non-inflatable prosthesis over the 13-year study period. There were 3317 explantations. Patient factors associated with prosthesis removal were non-black race, Charlson Comorbidity Index, diabetes, and HIV status. Hospital factors associated with removal included non-teaching status, hospital region, year of removal, and annual surgeon volume. Median hospitalization costs of all explantations were $10,878. Explantations due to infection cost $11,252 versus $8602 for mechanical complications.

Conclusions: This large population-based study demonstrates a stable trend in inflatable versus non-inflatable prosthesis implantation. We also identify patient and hospital factors that predict penile prosthesis removal which has clinical utility for patient risk stratification and counseling.

Citing Articles

A global, propensity-score matched analysis of patients receiving inflatable penile prostheses and the risk of complications, infections, and re-interventions.

Foss H, Prebay Z, Ebbott D, Buck M, Li M, Chung P Transl Androl Urol. 2024; 13(8):1537-1545.

PMID: 39280665 PMC: 11399048. DOI: 10.21037/tau-23-412.

Penile prosthesis implantation: a bibliometric-based visualization study.

Li Y, Gao D, Zhang J, Wang M, Lan X, Yu X Int J Impot Res. 2024; 37(1):4-13.

PMID: 38851852 DOI: 10.1038/s41443-024-00927-1.

Correlation of fasting blood sugar at the time of penile prosthesis surgery with the level of glycated hemoglobin and the outcome of surgery.

Haobus M, Almannie R, Aziz M, Farag M, Ralph D, Mulhall J Afr J Urol. 2023; 27.

PMID: 36844698 PMC: 9957561. DOI: 10.1186/s12301-021-00198-y.

Prosthetics in urology: Current status and future directions.

Cheriyan A Indian J Urol. 2023; 39(1):12-20.

PMID: 36824106 PMC: 9942223. DOI: 10.4103/iju.iju_90_22.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate in patients with preexisting inflatable penile prostheses.

Virani S, Kleinguetl C, Bird E, El Tayeb M Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2022; 35(4):441-443.

PMID: 35754578 PMC: 9196773. DOI: 10.1080/08998280.2022.2054054.

References

Nielsen K, Bruskewitz R . Semirigid and malleable rod penile prostheses. Urol Clin North Am. 1989; 16(1):13-23. View

Grewal S, Vetter J, Brandes S, Strope S . A population-based analysis of contemporary rates of reoperation for penile prosthesis procedures. Urology. 2014; 84(1):112-6. PMC: 4252045. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.028. View

Carson C, Robertson C . Late hematogenous infection of penile prostheses. J Urol. 1988; 139(1):50-2. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42287-7. View

Trost L, Hellstrom W . History, Contemporary Outcomes, and Future of Penile Prostheses: A Review of the Literature. Sex Med Rev. 2013; 1(3):150-163. DOI: 10.1002/smrj.8. View

Pineda M, Burnett A . Penile Prosthesis Infections-A Review of Risk Factors, Prevention, and Treatment. Sex Med Rev. 2016; 4(4):389-398. DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.03.003. View

Montague D, Angermeier K, Lakin M . Penile prosthesis infections. Int J Impot Res. 2002; 13(6):326-8. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3900768. View

Carson 3rd C, Mulcahy J, Harsch M . Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of followup. J Urol. 2010; 185(2):614-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.094. View

Cakan M, Demirel F, Karabacak O, Yalcinkaya F, Altug U . Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. Int Urol Nephrol. 2004; 35(2):209-13. DOI: 10.1023/b:urol.0000020300.23522.49. View

Charlson M, Pompei P, Ales K, MacKenzie C . A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40(5):373-83. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8. View

10.

Ko O, Bennett Jr N . Ambicor Two-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: Background and Contemporary Outcomes. Sex Med Rev. 2017; 6(2):319-327. DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.07.010. View

11.

Eid J . Penile Implant: Review of a "No-Touch" Technique. Sex Med Rev. 2016; 4(3):294-300. DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.01.002. View

12.

Levine L, Estrada C, Morgentaler A . Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol. 2001; 166(3):932-7. View

13.

Wilson S, Delk 2nd J . Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol. 1995; 153(3 Pt 1):659-61. View

14.

Radomski S, Herschorn S . Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection. J Urol. 1992; 147(2):383-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37243-9. View

15.

Mulcahy J . Current approach to the treatment of penile implant infections. Ther Adv Urol. 2011; 2(2):69-75. PMC: 3126071. DOI: 10.1177/1756287210370330. View

16.

Little J, Rhodus N . The need for antibiotic prophylaxis of patients with penile implants during invasive dental procedures: a national survey of urologists. J Urol. 1992; 148(6):1801-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37033-7. View

17.

Lotan Y, Roehrborn C, McConnell J, Hendin B . Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology. 2003; 62(5):918-21. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00665-4. View

18.

Chung E . Penile prosthesis implant: scientific advances and technological innovations over the last four decades. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(1):37-45. PMC: 5313299. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2016.12.06. View

19.

Wilson S, Delk J, Salem E, Cleves M . Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2,384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007; 4(4 Pt 1):1074-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00540.x. View

20.

Jarow J . Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol. 1996; 156(2 Pt 1):402-4. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199608000-00017. View