Patient Outcomes After Penile Prosthesis Placement with Concomitant Non-Reconstructive Urologic Procedures
ABSTRACT Purpose: There is substantial literature demonstrating minimal to no increased risk of three-piece penile prosthesis (PP) complications for patients undergoing placement with concomitant reconstructive urologic procedures. However, there is a paucity of research investigating outcomes for...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | International Brazilian Journal of Urology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382025000200400&lng=en&tlng=en |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | ABSTRACT Purpose: There is substantial literature demonstrating minimal to no increased risk of three-piece penile prosthesis (PP) complications for patients undergoing placement with concomitant reconstructive urologic procedures. However, there is a paucity of research investigating outcomes for patients suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) who undergo concomitant non-reconstructive urologic procedures at the time of PP placement. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing PP placement and a second non-reconstructive urologic procedure performed concomitantly at our institution between January 2007 and July 2021. This was compared to a control cohort of 127 patients who underwent PP placement only. Outcomes of interest were complications and device infections. Comparative statistics were used to compare the two groups, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the rate of complications and infections over time. Results: We identified 44 patients who underwent concomitant surgery and 127 patients who underwent single surgery only. The types of concomitant surgeries were as follows: 23 endoscopic (52.3%), 9 penile (20.5%), 10 scrotal (22.7%), 1 hardware placement (2.3%), and 1 oncologic (2.3%). Hypertension was the only comorbidity that was more prevalent in the concomitant group (65.9% vs. 43.8%, P<0.01). Patients undergoing concomitant surgery had similar complication (4.6% vs. 3.6%, P=0.79) and device infection (2.3% vs. 0.7%, P=0.43) rates as the single surgery group. Conclusions: In the largest study of its kind, we observed that patients undergoing concomitant non-reconstructive urologic procedures at the time of PP placement are not at an increased risk of adverse events. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1677-6119 |