Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis
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.
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.
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].
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.
KeywordsErectile dysfunction Inflatable penile prosthesis Penoscrotal approach Minimally invasive infrapubic approach
Inflatable penile prosthesis
Minimally invasive infrapubic approach
PG, GA: protocol/project development; GDL, AL, AG, GG: data collection or management; GBDP: data analysis; PG, EDB, CC, GBDP: manuscript writing/editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
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.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 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/
- 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 148:296–301Google 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar