Intra-peritoneal versus retropubic implantation of three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis: Patient-reported outcomes and complications

Abstract

Introduction:

The role of reservoir position was investigated in this series of patients treated with three-pieces penile prosthesis implantation (PPI). The outcomes and the patients’ reported quality of life after insertion of the balloon in the retropubic space, or the Retzius’s space (SOR), were compared with the outcomes of patients who received an intraperitoneal implantation (IP). The study aimed to analyze how the anatomy of the SOR influenced the long-term results of PPI, especially in patients who have been previously exposed to pelvic surgery or radiotherapy. The SOR has usually been identified as ideal for concealing and protecting the reservoir; nevertheless, an increasing rate of patients that ask for a PPI do not conserve the typical favorable characteristic of the SOR. In these cases, the tissue alteration can cause a higher rate of undesired events and can impair the satisfaction from device use. In the recent literature, few articles focus on the topic of reservoir position and very poor information is available about the results of the IP insertion.

Materials:

Our cohort of patients was retrospectively inspected; the two different subgroups, according to the reservoir position (SOR or IP) were evaluated considering the pre-operative condition, the post-operative complication, the development of undesired events or uncomfortable sensations during the follow-up. The quality of life after PPI was observed as well, with a questionnaire specifically developed for patients treated with PPI. The surgical technique adopted for the intraperitoneal implantation was described.

Results:

The results of penile prosthesis functionality and patients’ and partners’ reported quality of life (QoL) showed similar results between the two groups but greater satisfaction in the relational domain of the questionnaires adopted was described in the IP subgroup.

Conclusion:

According to our observations, the IP reservoir insertion guarantees good functionality and lower rates of undesired events after PPI.

Keywords

Implantation reservoir inflatable penile prosthesis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

NIH Consensus Conference. Impotence. NIH Consensus development panel on impotence. JAMA 1993; 270(1): 83–90.

Braun

Wassmer

Klotz

, et al. Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction: results of the “Cologne Male Survey.” Int J Impot Res 2000; 12(6): 305–311.

Yafi

Jenkins

Albersen

, et al. Erectile dysfunction. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2016; 2: 16003.

Hatzimouratidis

Amar

Eardley

, et al. Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction: erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. Eur Urol 2010; 57(5): 804–814.

Hernández

Trost

Köhler

, et al. Emerging complications following alternative reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a 5-year multi-institutional experience. J Urol 2019; 201(3): 581–586.

Reznicek

Bryson

Kramer

AC.

Review: alternative placement of penile prosthesis reservoir and AUS pressure regulating balloon. Sex Med Rev 2015; 3(1): 48–55.

Madiraju

Hakky

Perito

, et al. Placement of inflatable penile implants in patients with prior radical pelvic surgery: a literature review. Sex Med Rev 2019; 7(1): 189–197.

Perito

Wilson

The history of nontraditional or ectopic placement of reservoirs in prosthetic urology. Sex Med Rev 2016; 4(2): 190–193.

Althof

Corty

Levine

, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology 1999; 53(4): 793–799.

10.

Zigmond

Snaith

RP.

The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67(6): 361–370.

11.

Dindo

Demartines

Clavien

PA.

Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240(2): 205–213.

12.

Douglas

Lutz

McVary

, et al. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement for penile prosthesis. Ochsner J 2016; 16(4): 492–495.

13.

Caraceni

Utizi

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 2014; 11(4): 1005–1012.

14.

Gross

Stember

Garber

, et al. A retrospective analysis of risk factors for IPP reservoir entry into the peritoneum after abdominal wall placement. Int J Impot Res 2017; 29(5): 215–218.

15.

Stember

Garber

Perito

PE.

Outcomes of abdominal wall reservoir placement in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a safe and efficacious alternative to the space of retzius. J Sex Med 2014; 11(2): 605–612.

16.

Morey

Cefalu

Hudak

SJ.

High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs via transscrotal approach. J Sex Med 2013; 10(2): 603–610.

17.

Osmonov

Chomicz

Tropmann-Frick

, et al. High-submuscular vs. space of Retzius reservoir placement during implantation of inflatable penile implants. Int J Impot Res 2020; 32(1): 18–23.

18.

Levine

Hoeh

MP.

Review of penile prosthetic reservoir: complications and presentation of a modified reservoir placement technique. J Sex Med 2012; 9(11): 2759–2769.

19.

Hollenbeck

Miller

Ohl

DA.

The utility of lockout valve reservoirs in preventing autoinflation in penile prostheses. Int Urol Nephrol 2002; 34(3): 379–383.

20.

Cui

Terlecki

Mirzazadeh

Infrequent reservoir-related complications of urologic prosthetics: a case series and literature review. Sex Med 2015; 3(4): 334–338.