Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare perioperative results, safety and efficacy profile in patients receiving inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) via penoscrotal (PS) or minimally invasive infrapubic (MII) approach for erectile dysfunction.

Methods

A matched-pair analysis was performed including 42 patients undergoing IPP implantation via PS (n = 21) or MII (n = 21) between 2011 and 2016. Clinical and surgical data were prospectively collected. Patients’ and partners’ outcomes were assessed by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) and Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaires.

Results

Mean (SD) operative time was 128 (40.6) min in group PS and 91 (43.0) min in group MII (p = 0.041). Complications occurred in 3/21 (14%) and 2/21 (10%) patients in groups PS and MII (p = 0.832). Overall, no differences were observed concerning the device utilisation (p = 0.275). However, in group MII 4/21 (19%) patients were able to resume sexual activity prior to 4 postoperative weeks, while in group PS no patient was (p = 0.012). Mean (SD) scores for questionnaires were similar between groups PS and MII: IIEF [20.9 (7.3) vs. 20.7 (4.8); p = 0.132], patient EDITS [76.0 (25.6) vs. 74.7 (20.8); p = 0.256] and partner EDITS [72.5 (29.1) vs. 73.1 (21.4); p = 0.114]. Similarly, QoLSPP showed comparable results among the groups PS and MII: functional domain [3.9 (1.4) vs. 4.0 (1.2); p = 0.390], personal [4.0 (1.2) vs. 4.1 (1.0); p = 0.512], relational [3.7 (1.5) vs. 3.9 (1.2); p = 0.462] and social [4.0 (1.2) vs. 3.9 (1.2); p = 0.766].

Conclusions

PS and MII demonstrated to be safe and efficient techniques, leading to high level of both patients and partners satisfaction. Additionally, the minimally invasive infrapubic approach showed a shorter operative time and a tendency for a faster return to sexual activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ED:

Erectile dysfunction

IPP:

Inflatable penile prosthesis

PS:

Penoscrotal approach

MII:

Minimally invasive infrapubic approach

References

  1. Hatzimouratidis K, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Moncada I, Salonia A et al (2014) Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction. Eur Assoc Urol. http://uroweb.org/guideline/male-sexual-dysfunction/

  2. Levine LA, Becher E, Bella A, Brant W, Kohler T, Martinez-salamanca JI et al (2016) Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. J Sex Med 13:489–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kramer A, Chason J (2010) Residents at the University of Maryland Medical System provide insight to learning infrapubic approach for IPP surgery: relative benefits but novel challenges exposed in first 15 cases. J Sex Med 7:1298–1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01588.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Perito PE (2008) Minimally invasive infrapubic inflatable penile implant. J Sex Med 5:27–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00682.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Trost LW, Boonjindasup AG, Hellstrom WJG (2015) Comparison of infrapubic versus transcrotal approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institution report. Int J Impot Res 27:86–89. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2014.35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Garber BB, Marcus SM (1998) Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection? Urology 52:291–293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Candela JV, Hellstrom WJ (1996) Three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a comparison of the penoscrotal and infrapubic surgical approaches. J Louisiana State Med Soc Off Organ Louisiana State Med Soc 148:296–301

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Scarzella GI (1989) Improved technique for implanting AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis using transverse scrotal approach. Urology 34:388–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(89)90450-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wolf JS, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, Hollenbeck BK, Pearle MS, Schaeffer AJ et al (2008) Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol 179:1379–1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karpman E, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Henry G, Khera M, Morey AF (2013) Current opinions on alternative reservoir placement for inflatable penile prosthesis among members of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America. J Sex Med 10:2115–2120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smaldone MC, Cannon GM, Benoit RM (2006) Subcutaneous reservoir placement during penile prosthesis implantation. Can J Urol 13:3351–3352

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Perito PE, Wilson SK (2011) Traditional (retroperitoneal) and abdominal wall (ectopic) reservoir placement. J Sex Med 8:656–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02202.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Knoll LD, Henry G, Culkin D, Ohl DA, Otheguy J, Shabsigh R et al (2009) Physician and patient satisfaction with the new AMS 700 momentary squeeze inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med 6:1773–1778. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01251.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, Levine F, Burnett AL, Mcvary K et al (1999) EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology 53:793–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00582-2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Caraceni E, Utizi L (2014) A questionnaire for the evaluation of quality of life after penile prosthesis implant: quality of life and sexuality with penile prosthesis (QoLSPP): to what extent does the implant affect the patient’s life? J Sex Med 11:1005–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rhoden EL, Telöken C, Sogari PR, Souto CAV (2002) The use of the simplified International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool to study the prevalence of erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 14:245–250. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900859

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE (2000) Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700Cx inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. J Urol 164:376–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67364-8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brinkman MJ, Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delkii J, Denny G, Young M et al (2005) A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses for satisfaction. J Urol 174:253–257. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000161608.21337.8d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Henry GD, Brinkman MJ, Mead SF, Delk JR, Cleves MA, Jennermann C et al (2012) A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses: assessment of timing and frequency of intercourse and analysis of implant durability. J Sex Med 9:1715–1721. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02729.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chiang H-S, Wu C, Wen T-C (2000) 10 years of experience with penile prosthesis implantation in Taiwanese patients. J Urol 163:476–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67905-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ohl DA, Brock G, Ralph D, Bogache W, Jones L, Munarriz R et al (2012) Prospective evaluation of patient satisfaction, and surgeon and patient trainer assessment of the Coloplast titan one touch release three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med 9:2467–2474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02819.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd (1995) Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol 153:659–661

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Goldstein I, Newman L, Baum N, Brooks M, Chaikin L, Goldberg K et al (1997) Safety and efficacy outcome of mentor alpha-1 inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for impotence treatment. J Urol 157:833–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65058-4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Carvalheira A, Santana R, Pereira NM (2015) Why are men satisfied or dissatisfied with penile implants? A mixed method study on satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med 12:2474–2480. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.13054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tefilli MV, Dubocq F, Rajpurkar A, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, Barton C et al (1998) Assessment of psychosexual adjustment after insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 52:1106–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00362-8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Vakalopoulos I, Kampantais S, Ioannidis S, Laskaridis L, Dimopoulos P, Toutziaris C et al (2013) High patient satisfaction after inflatable penile prostheses implantation correlates with female partner satisfaction. J Sex Med 10:2774–2781. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mulhall JP, Ahmed A, Branch J, Parker M (2003) Serial assessment of efficacy and satisfaction profiles following penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol 169:1429–1433. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000056047.74268.9c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rajpurkar A, Dhabuwala CB (2003) Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice. J Urol 170:159–163. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000072524.82345.6d

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Carson CC, Levine LA (2014) Outcomes of surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease. BJU Int 113:704–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrical and Gynaecological Sciences and Urological Sciences, ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, Viale del Policlinico 155, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Pietro Grande, Gabriele Antonini, Cristiano Cristini, Ettore De Berardinis, Antonio Gatto, Giovanni Di Lascio, Andrea Lemma & Giovanni Battista Di Pierro

  2. CIC-Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli, Rome, Italy

    Giuseppe Gentile

Authors
  1. Pietro Grande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriele Antonini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cristiano Cristini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ettore De Berardinis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Antonio Gatto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giovanni Di Lascio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrea Lemma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giuseppe Gentile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Giovanni Battista Di Pierro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PG, GA: protocol/project development; GDL, AL, AG, GG: data collection or management; GBDP: data analysis; PG, EDB, CC, GBDP: manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Battista Di Pierro.

Ethics declarations

We disclose any conflict of interest such as consultancies, stock ownership or other equity interests, patents received and/or pending, or any commercial relationship which might be in any way considered related to the submitted article. All authors have made a significant contribution to the findings and methods in the paper and have read and approved the final draft. Hospital Ethics Committee approval was obtained and it conforms to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients had given written informed consent and anonymity was preserved. The work has not already been published and has not been submitted simultaneously to any other journal.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grande, P., Antonini, G., Cristini, C. et al. Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis. World J Urol 36, 1167–1174 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2249-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2249-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation