Evaluation of Quality of Life After Inflatable Penile Implantation and Analysis of Factors Influencing Postsurgery Patient Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Most of the published literature addressing the satisfaction postinflatable penile implant (IPP) placement includes non-validated surveys. AIM: The study aims to report the survey outcomes of the English version of The QoLSPP and to evaluate the different factors that could influence these results. METHODS: Patients who underwent inflatable penile implant placement from January 2017 to December 2019 received a survey by phone and had a visit scheduled no sooner than 27 months after surgery. In the clinic, they were inquired about the penile size and underwent measurements of postoperative penile length and diameter. The survey responses were rated from zero to 5 following QoLSPP, and answers ≥3 were considered positive. An evaluation of the factors influencing the quality-of-life score of patients post-IPP placement was performed. Variables included age (<60, 60-70, >70), BMI classification, Charlson Comorbidity Index, diabetes diagnosis, implant type (AMS 700CX vs Titan), ED etiology, revisions, postoperative time in months (<30, 30-40, >40) and preoperative vs postoperative penile dimensions in those who attended the clinic. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was to obtain accurate patient-reported satisfaction after inflatable penile implantation. RESULTS: Within the timeframe, 542 patients underwent first-time IPP placements. Of that group, 322(n) completed the surveys, and 109 patients attended the clinic to compare preoperative vs postoperative dimensions. Of note, 67 (61.4%) and 54 (49.4 %) demonstrated enlargement in length and diameter, respectively. Conversely, 12 (11%) and 4 (3.7%) experienced a shortening in length and girth. We found 66 (60.5%) patients who complained about a penile size decrease after the intervention. The survey had a positive response in 93.1% of the cases. There were no statistically significant differences in positive responses concerning the variables investigated. The subpopulation analysis of the penile-sized group neither showed response variations. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The investigation allowed a better understanding of patient-reported satisfaction post-IPP placement. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The performance of all the procedures in a high-volume center by a single surgeon limits its generalization. CONCLUSION: The overall results after IPP surgery are positive in most patients who underwent the procedure and the variables investigated did not influence the overall outcomes of the QoLSPP survey in the study. Luna E, Rodriguez D, Barrios D, et al. Evaluation of Quality of Life After Inflatable Penile Implantation and Analysis of Factors Influencing Postsurgery Patient Satisfaction. J Sex Med 2022;19:1472-1478.

Permanent Deactivation of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis via Puncture.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our technique and early results for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) deactivation via puncture and drainage in the office setting to avoid penile explanting interventions in high-risk surgical patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with high perioperative risk who had undergone IPP prosthesis puncture in the office setting between March 2020 and May 2021 was performed. Variables included age, the reason for penile prosthesis implantation and deactivation, time frame from implantation to deactivation, type of penile implant, follow-up time, and complications. Clinical information and procedural consent from patients with mental impairment were obtained from caretakers or legal guardians. RESULTS: In all the cases, the implants were in a good position and cycled well without difficulty before undergoing the drainage. Ten patients underwent the deactivation procedure, with ages ranging from 81 to 93 years old (mean 88 ± 3.74), 9 cases had a dementia diagnosis, and 1 case of penile implant aversion. Mean follow-up was 8.4 months ± 2.3, and there were no reported complications during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Permanent deactivation of IPP via in-office puncture and drainage represents a safe, feasible, and reliable option for those patients with multiple comorbidities and caretakers who desire removal of normally cycling, well-positioned, and uninfected penile implants. We strongly recommend all our patients with severe cognitive decline have their implants devices punctured to prevent any potential complications.