Long-term outcomes after plaque excision grafting for Peyronie's disease and subanalysis of patients who undergo the procedure despite preoperative counseling against it.

BACKGROUND: Plaque excision and grafting (PEG) has been recommended for patients with Peyronie's disease (PD) with >60° curvature and/or hinge effect and strong preoperative erections, while placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is recommended when rigidity is suboptimal. Nevertheless, many patients counseled to undergo an IPP decline and insist on proceeding with PEG due to personal preference or desire to avoid an implant. AIM: We aim to review long-term outcomes in patients who underwent PEG for PD at our institution and investigate whether there is any difference in long-term outcomes in patients who undergo PEG despite a recommendation to undergo IPP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review from 2007 to 2021 on PEG surgery performed at a single tertiary care institution in patients ≥18 years old who had >3 months of follow-up. OUTCOMES: Postoperative information was gathered from the electronic medical record, including postoperative erectile function, patient satisfaction, and the ability to engage in penetrative sexual intercourse. RESULTS: An overall 251 patients underwent PEG with a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR, 6-54). Among these, 54 (22%) were initially advised to undergo IPP but elected for PEG. Patients who underwent PEG despite counseling to undergo IPP reported lower postoperative ability to engage in intercourse (51% vs 76%). Seven (13%) patients initially advised to undergo IPP eventually received an IPP, relative to 7 (4%) initially advised to undergo PEG. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Thorough preoperative assessment of erectile function and penile deformity can guide clinician counseling and manage patient expectations during decision making between PEG surgery and IPP implantation for PD. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, high attrition to follow-up, and risk of recall and selection bias. This is a large study with a median follow-up of 12 months, with a high-volume single surgeon who treats patients in a specialized population of complex cases. CONCLUSION: Patients who were initially counseled to undergo IPP due to suboptimal erectile rigidity but elected for PEG had worse postoperative ability to engage in penetrative intercourse, and a higher proportion of these patients eventually received an IPP.

Subcoronal inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: indications and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: While implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is commonly performed via infrapubic or penoscrotal approaches, the subcoronal (SC) approach for IPP implantation may safely and reliably allow for additional reconstructive procedures through a single incision. AIM: The aim of this study is to report outcomes, including complications, of the SC approach and to determine common characteristics of patients undergoing the SC approach. METHODS: A retrospective chart review from May 11, 2012, to January 31, 2022, was performed at a single, tertiary care institution to identify patients with IPP implantation via the SC approach. OUTCOMES: Postoperative information was reviewed and extracted from all clinic notes available following the date of IPP implantation in the electronic medical record, detailing any complications including wound complications, need for revision or removal, device malfunction, and infections. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients had IPP implantation via the SC approach. Median follow-up duration was 29.4 (interquartile range 14.9-50.1) months. One (1.8%) patient had a simple wound complication. Two (3.6%) experienced postoperative infection of the prosthesis, which resulted in explantation of the device. One of these infected prostheses later experienced partial glans necrosis. Revision for mechanical failure or unsatisfactory cosmetic result was performed in 3 (7.3%) IPPs placed via a SC incision. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The SC approach for implantation of IPP is safe and feasible with low complication and revision rates. It offers urologists an alternative to the classic infrapubic and penoscrotal approaches, both of which would require a second incision for additional reconstructive procedures required to adequately address deformities associated with severe Peyronie's disease. Therefore, urologists who treat these specialized populations of men may benefit from having the SC approach in their array of techniques for IPP implantation. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, risk of selection bias, lack of comparison groups, and sample size. This study reports on early experience with the SC approach performed by a single high-volume reconstructive surgeon, who treats a specialized population of patients requiring complex repair during implantation of an IPP, particularly those with Peyronie's disease. CONCLUSION: The SC incision for IPP implantation has low rates of complications and remains our approach of choice for IPP implantation in patients with severe Peyronie's disease, including curvatures >60°, severe indentation with hinge, and grade 3 calcification, which are unlikely to respond adequately to manual modeling alone.

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes after penile prosthesis placement in men with and without Peyronie's disease.

We evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing penile prothesis (PP) implantation for erectile dysfunction (ED) and concurrent Peyronie's Disease (PD). A clinician-developed survey to assess satisfaction was sent to 354 patients who underwent PP placement from 2012-2018 by a single-surgeon. Results were compared based on the presence or absence of concurrent PD. 79 patients completed the survey (response rate 22%), including 38 patients (48%) with concurrent ED and PD (ED/PD). Mean follow-up was 31 months (standard deviation 19). 87% felt their condition was "very much" or "much" improved. There was no significant difference in patient-reported overall satisfaction with their PP or satisfaction with current penile length/girth based on the presence or absence of PD. 87% of patients with PD were satisfied with their degree of penile straightening after PP plus or minus concurrent straightening maneuvers such as modeling, plication, or incision/grafting. Sub-group analyses were performed to evaluate outcomes in those with concurrent PD/ED who required plaque incision/grafting at the time of PP placement for more severe deformity (n = 19). 47% of these patients were dissatisfied with their current penile length, compared with only 16% of those patients with PD/ED who did not require grafting (p = 0.05). In conclusion, the presence of PD alone may not impact PP satisfaction, but patients with more severe baseline deformity who require incision/grafting may be less satisfied with outcomes including penile length.