There is limited scientific literature regarding the management outcomes for end-stage erectile dysfunction (ED) following radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP). This study aims to evaluate the surgical outcomes of penile prosthesis (PP) implantation. A retrospective analysis over 17 years (2004–2017) was performed from the clinical records of patients in four tertiary referral centres, whom previously had undergone RCP, followed by PP implantation for end-stage ED. Outcome measures include both intra and postoperative complications, operative duration, a 5-point Likert hematoma scale as well as length of hospital stay. Additionally, a matched-pair cohort analysis was performed, dividing patients in 2 groups according to the type of urinary diversion (neobladder versus ileal conduit/cutaneous ureterostomy). The median time elapsed between RCP and PP implantation was 38 months (IQR 20–56). The median follow-up was 18 months (IQR 12–156). A 3-piece inflatable PP was implanted in 43 patients (91.5%) whereas a semirigid device was implanted in the remainder. Reservoir position was extra-peritoneal (utilising a separate abdominal incision) in 24 patients (54.8%), while an ectopic high-submuscular placement was preferred in the remainder. PP infection and mechanical failure occurred in 1 (2.1%) and 3 cases (6.3%) respectively. The comparative analysis of surgical outcomes did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups. Our evidence suggests that PP implantation in patients with refractory ED following RCP may represent a safe and effective procedure associated with a low incidence of complications. The main limitation of this study is represented by the non-randomised, retrospective nature as well as the lack of patients’ functional outcomes and the limited follow-up.
An outcomes analysis of penile prosthesis implantation following radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion: a multicentric retrospective cohort study / Falcone M.; Pucci L.; Garaffa G.; Cocci A.; Gillo A.; Capece M.; Ceruti C.; Timpano M.; Sedigh O.; Preto M.; Blecher G.; Chiancone F.; Carrino M.; Rolle L.; Gontero P.. - In: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPOTENCE RESEARCH. - ISSN 0955-9930. - ELETTRONICO. - 32:(2020), pp. 126-132. [10.1038/s41443-019-0171-6]
An outcomes analysis of penile prosthesis implantation following radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion: a multicentric retrospective cohort study
Cocci A.;
2020
Abstract
There is limited scientific literature regarding the management outcomes for end-stage erectile dysfunction (ED) following radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP). This study aims to evaluate the surgical outcomes of penile prosthesis (PP) implantation. A retrospective analysis over 17 years (2004–2017) was performed from the clinical records of patients in four tertiary referral centres, whom previously had undergone RCP, followed by PP implantation for end-stage ED. Outcome measures include both intra and postoperative complications, operative duration, a 5-point Likert hematoma scale as well as length of hospital stay. Additionally, a matched-pair cohort analysis was performed, dividing patients in 2 groups according to the type of urinary diversion (neobladder versus ileal conduit/cutaneous ureterostomy). The median time elapsed between RCP and PP implantation was 38 months (IQR 20–56). The median follow-up was 18 months (IQR 12–156). A 3-piece inflatable PP was implanted in 43 patients (91.5%) whereas a semirigid device was implanted in the remainder. Reservoir position was extra-peritoneal (utilising a separate abdominal incision) in 24 patients (54.8%), while an ectopic high-submuscular placement was preferred in the remainder. PP infection and mechanical failure occurred in 1 (2.1%) and 3 cases (6.3%) respectively. The comparative analysis of surgical outcomes did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups. Our evidence suggests that PP implantation in patients with refractory ED following RCP may represent a safe and effective procedure associated with a low incidence of complications. The main limitation of this study is represented by the non-randomised, retrospective nature as well as the lack of patients’ functional outcomes and the limited follow-up.I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.