Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Oxycodone prescription after inflatable penile prosthesis has risks of persistent use: a TriNetX analysis

  • Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Impotence Research Submit manuscript

Abstract

We sought to evaluate the impact of Oxycodone prescriptions on short-term patient outcomes and long-term Oxycodone use following inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement. We queried the TriNetX research database for all adult patients undergoing IPP. Cohorts included opioid naïve patients prescribed postoperative Oxycodone against propensity score-matched patients without a prescription. We compared return visits to the emergency department (ED) within 14 and 90 days of surgery, a diagnosis of opioid abuse or dependence disorder 6 months or later after surgery and persistent Oxycodone use 9–15 months after surgery. After matching, there were 2433 patients in each group. There was an increase in 90-day ED visits based on receipt of Oxycodone (6.8% of patients vs 5.0%, risk ratio (RR) 1.4 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.1, 1.7]). Groups had similar 14-day ED visits (3.7% of patients vs 2.9%, RR 1.3, 95% CI [0.95, 1.7]). Patients prescribed Oxycodone (5.1% of patients vs 2.7%, RR 1.9, 95% CI [1.4, 2.6]) were more likely to have persistent Oxycodone use at 9–15 months. There were low instances of diagnosis of opioid dependence or abuse for both groups limiting comparison. Oxycodone prescription after IPP has risks of persistent use and withholding Oxycodone does not appear to increase postoperative healthcare utilization.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data proprietary to TriNetX.

References

  1. Theisen K, Jacobs B, Macleod L, Davies B. The United States opioid epidemic: a review of the surgeon’s contribution to it and health policy initiatives. BJU Int. 2018;122:754–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carnes KM, Singh Z, Ata A, Mian BM. Interventions to reduce opioid prescriptions following urological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2022;207:969–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson DJ, Cao DY, Zhou J, McDonald M, Razzak AN, Hasoon J, et al. Opioids in urology: how well are we preventing opioid dependence and how can we do better? Health Psychol Res. 2022;10:38243.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Amend GM, Hakam N, Nabavizadeh B, Sadighian MJ, Holler JT, Rios N, et al. Institutional opioid prescription guidelines are effective in reducing post-operative prescriptions following urologic surgery: results from the American Urologic Association 2018 Census. Urology. 2021;158:5–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jacobs BL, Rogers D, Yabes JG, Bandari J, Ayyash OM, Maganty A, et al. Large reduction in opioid prescribing by a multipronged behavioral intervention after major urologic surgery. Cancer. 2021;127:257–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Theisen KM, Davies BJ. A radical proposition: opioid-sparing prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6:215–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prebay ZJ, Medairos R, Landowski T, Everett RG, Doolittle J, Kansal JK, et al. Pain management following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: transitioning to an opioid free regimen. J Robot Surg. 2021;15:923–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones CA, Pekala KR, Armann KM, Maganty A, Yabes JG, Bandari J, et al. Opioid-free ureteroscopy: are academic urologists lagging behind private practice? Urology. 2022;167:56–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.06.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reinstatler L, Rodríguez D, Goddard B, Apoj M, Rezaee M, Gross M, et al. Postoperative penile prosthesis pain: is it worse in diabetic patients? Int J Impot Res. 2021;33:286–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chan EP, Punjani N, Campbell JD, Abed H, Brock G. Indications for penile prosthesis revision: lessons learned to limit technical causes of reoperation. J Sex Med. 2019;16:1444–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ziegelmann MJ, Joseph JP, Glasgow AE, Tyson MD, Pak RW, Gazelka HM, et al. Wide variation in opioid prescribing after urological surgery in tertiary care centers. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94:262–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tong CMC, Lucas J, Shah A, Foote C, Simhan J. Novel multi-modal analgesia protocol significantly decreases opioid requirements in inflatable penile prosthesis patients. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1187–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lucas J, Gross M, Yafi F, DeLay K, Christianson S, El-Khatib FM, et al. A multi-institutional assessment of multimodal analgesia in penile implant recipients demonstrates dramatic reduction in pain scores and narcotic usage. J Sex Med. 2020;17:518–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ehlers ME, Mohan CS, Akerman JP, McGowan M, McCormick BJ, Hacker KE, et al. Factors impacting postoperative opioid use among patients undergoing implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2021;18:1915–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Welk B, McClure JA, Clarke C, Vogt K, Campbell J. An opioid prescription for men undergoing minor urologic surgery is associated with an increased risk of new persistent opioid use. Eur Urol. 2020;77:68–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eastwood B. In compare outcomes, how are patients matched when balancing cohorts? In: Outcomes Analytics (Compare Outcomes and Analyze Outcomes). TriNetX Help Center n.d. 2018. https://support.trinetx.com/hc/en-us/articles/360011978033-In-compare-outcomes-how-are-patients-matched-when-balancing-cohorts-. Accessed December 3, 2022.

  17. Hernandez-Boussard T, Graham LA, Desai K, Wahl TS, Aucoin E, Richman JS, et al. The fifth vital sign: postoperative pain predicts 30-day readmissions and subsequent emergency department visits. Ann Surg. 2017;266:516–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hawken SR, Hiller SC, Daignault-Newton S, Ghani KR, Hollingsworth JM, Conrado B, et al. Opioid-free discharge is not associated with increased unplanned healthcare encounters after ureteroscopy: results from a statewide quality improvement collaborative. Urology. 2021;158:57–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brummett CM, Waljee JF, Goesling J, Moser S, Lin P, Englesbe MJ, et al. New persistent opioid use after minor and major surgical procedures in US adults. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:e170504.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ellis JL, Ghiraldi EM, Cohn JA, Nitti M, Friedlander JI, Ginzburg S, et al. Prescribing trends in post-operative pain management after urologic surgery: a quality care investigation for healthcare providers. Urology. 2021;153:156–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Siglin J, Sorkin JD, Namiranian K. Incidence of postoperative opioid overdose and new diagnosis of opioid use disorder among US veterans. Am J Addict. 2020;29:295–304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Shah AS, Blackwell RH, Kuo PC, Gupta GN. Rates and risk factors for opioid dependence and overdose after urological surgery. J Urol. 2017;198:1130–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bicket MC, Lin LA, Waljee J. New persistent opioid use after surgery: a risk factor for opioid use disorder? Ann Surg. 2022;275:e288–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Scherrer JF, Tucker J, Salas J, Zhang Z, Grucza R. Comparison of opioids prescribed for patients at risk for opioid misuse before and after publication of the centers for disease control and prevention’s opioid prescribing guidelines. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2027481.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ellis JL, Pryor JJ, Mendez M, Sarmiento AS, Perito P, Simhan J. Pain management strategies in contemporary penile implant recipients. Curr Urol Rep. 2021;22:17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Zachary J. Prebay, Halle Foss, David Ebbott & Paul H. Chung

  2. Center for Digital Health and Data Science, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Michael Li

Authors
  1. Zachary J. Prebay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Halle Foss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Ebbott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul H. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and performing critical revision. All authors approved the final manuscript. Data collection, analysis, and interpretation were performed by ZJP, DE, and HF. PHC provided critical oversight and supervision of the project.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul H. Chung.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

PHC consults for and receives research support from Boston Scientific and Coloplast. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

This study population was an entirely deidentified analysis from a third-party research database. Thus, this study was considered exempt from institutional review board approval.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prebay, Z.J., Foss, H., Ebbott, D. et al. Oxycodone prescription after inflatable penile prosthesis has risks of persistent use: a TriNetX analysis. Int J Impot Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00760-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00760-y

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation