2019The Journal of Sexual MedicineRequires access

Indications for Penile Prosthesis Revision: Lessons Learned to Limit Technical Causes of Reoperation

Ernest Chan, Nahid Punjani, Jeffrey Campbell, Haider Abed, Gerald Brock

Open publisher page 20 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Reoperations are necessary in approximately 30% of penile prostheses over 15 years following original implantation. AIM: To determine the most common indications for initial penile prosthesis reoperation at our institution and to describe technical alterations that have improved postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent penile prosthesis reoperation surgery at a single, high-volume Canadian center between 2006 and 2018 was performed. Patient demographic information, prosthetic device factors, and surgical complications were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcomes were the indications for and variables associated with initial penile prosthesis reoperation. RESULTS: During the study period, 99 first-time penile prosthesis reoperations were performed out of 1,161 penile prosthesis procedures (Figure 1). This included 14 (14.1%) explants, 32 (32.3%) revisions, and 53 (53.5%) explant and reimplants. Indications for reoperation included 49 (49.5%) mechanical failures, 28 (28.3%) technical causes (such as correction of malposition or device herniation), and 12 (12.1%) procedures to treat chronic postoperative pain. Median follow-up was 78.5 months, and median time to reoperation was 46 months. Mechanical failures commonly occurred in the tubing (n = 13, 26.5%) and cylinders (n = 13, 26.5%). The most frequently repositioned component was the valve pump (n = 11, 39.3%). Infection-related indications for reoperation were uncommon (n = 10, 10.1%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: More than a quarter of penile prosthesis reoperations may have been preventable with alterations in surgical technique, device positioning, and postoperative care. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study evaluates a range of indications for initial penile prosthesis reoperation performed by a high-volume single surgeon over a 12-year period. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, loss of patients to follow-up, and lack of etiological determinants of prosthesis failure. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation for device repositioning and herniation was required for more than a quarter of the initial penile prosthesis implants. Modifications in surgical technique and perioperative care can help reduce the incidence of these technical causes for reoperation. Chan EP, Punjani N, Campbell JD, et al. Indications for Penile Prosthesis Revision: Lessons Learned to Limit Technical Causes of Reoperation. J Sex Med 2019; 16:1444-1450.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

INTRODUCTION: Reoperations are necessary in approximately 30% of penile prostheses over 15 years following original implantation. AIM: To determine the most common indications for initial penile prosthesis reoperation at our institution and to describe technical alterations that have improved postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent penile prosthesis reoperation surgery at a single, high-volume Canadian center between 2006 and 2018 was performed. Patient demographic information, prosthetic device factors, and surgical complications were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcomes were the indications for and variables associated with initial penile prosthesis reoperation. RESULTS: During the study period, 99 first-time penile prosthesis reoperations were performed out of 1,161 penile prosthesis procedures (Figure 1). This included 14 (14.1%) explants, 32 (32.3%) revisions, and 53 (53.5%) explant and reimplants. Indications for reoperation included 49 (49.5%) mechanical failures, 28 (28.3%) technical causes (such as correction of malposition or device herniation), and 12 (12.1%) procedures to treat chronic postoperative pain. Median follow-up was 78.5 months, and median time to reoperation was 46 months. Mechanical failures commonly occurred in the tubing (n = 13, 26.5%) and cylinders (n = 13, 26.5%). The most frequently repositioned component was the valve pump (n = 11, 39.3%). Infection-related indications for reoperation were uncommon (n = 10, 10.1%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: More than a quarter of penile prosthesis reoperations may have been preventable with alterations in surgical technique, device positioning, and postoperative care. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study evaluates a range of indications for initial penile prosthesis reoperation performed by a high-volume single surgeon over a 12-year period. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, loss of patients to follow-up, and lack of etiological determinants of prosthesis failure. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation for device repositioning and herniation was required for more than a quarter of the initial penile prosthesis implants. Modifications in surgical technique and perioperative care can help reduce the incidence of these technical causes for reoperation. Chan EP, Punjani N, Campbell JD, et al. Indications for Penile Prosthesis Revision: Lessons Learned to Limit Technical Causes of Reoperation. J Sex Med 2019; 16:1444-1450.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 20 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

INTRODUCTION: Reoperations are necessary in approximately 30% of penile prostheses over 15 years following original implantation. AIM: To determine the most common indications for initial penile prosthesis reoperation at our institution and to describe technical alterations that have improved postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent penile prosthesis reoperation surgery at a single, high-volume Canadian center between 2006 and 2018 was performed. Patient demographic information, prosthetic device factors, and surgical complications were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcomes were the indications for and variables associated with initial penile prosthesis reoperation. RESULTS: During the study period, 99 first-time penile prosthesis reoperations were performed out of 1,161 penile prosthesis procedures (Figure 1). This included 14 (14.1%) explants, 32 (32.3%) revisions, and 53 (53.5%) explant and reimplants. Indications for reoperation included 49 (49.5%) mechanical failures, 28 (28.3%) technical causes (such as correction of malposition or device herniation), and 12 (12.1%) procedures to treat chronic postoperative pain. Median follow-up was 78.5 months, and median time to reoperation was 46 months. Mechanical failures commonly occurred in the tubing (n = 13, 26.5%) and cylinders (n = 13, 26.5%). The most frequently repositioned component was the valve pump (n = 11, 39.3%). Infection-related indications for reoperation were uncommon (n = 10, 10.1%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: More than a quarter of penile prosthesis reoperations may have been preventable with alterations in surgical technique, device positioning, and postoperative care. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study evaluates a range of indications for initial penile prosthesis reoperation performed by a high-volume single surgeon over a 12-year period. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, loss of patients to follow-up, and lack of etiological determinants of prosthesis failure. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation for device repositioning and herniation was required for more than a quarter of the initial penile prosthesis implants. Modifications in surgical technique and perioperative care can help reduce the incidence of these technical causes for reoperation. Chan EP, Punjani N, Campbell JD, et al. Indications for Penile Prosthesis Revision: Lessons Learned to Limit Technical Causes of Reoperation. J Sex Med 2019; 16:1444-1450.

Key concepts: Medicine, Penile prosthesis, Prosthesis, Surgery, Erectile dysfunction, Implant, Prosthesis Implantation, Retrospective cohort study

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Indications for Penile Prosthesis Revision: Lessons Learned to Limit Technical Causes of Reoperation — Research Paper | ScholarLens