Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement Following Pelvic Radiation: Technical Considerations and Contemporary Outcomes. Issue 7 (3rd May 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Loh-Doyle, Jeffrey; Patil, Mukul B.; Nakhoda, Zein; Nassiri, Nima; Yip, Wesley; Wayne, Kevin; Doumanian, Leo; Boyd, Stuart D.
• Is Part Of: Journal of sexual medicine. Volume 15:Issue 7(2018)
• Page Start: 1049
• Page End: 1054
• Publication Date: 2018-05-03
• Subjects: Erectile Dysfunction -- Inflatable Penile Prosthesis -- Radiation Therapy -- Brachytherapy -- Salvage Prostatectomy; Sexual disorders -- Periodicals; Sex -- Periodicals; Sexual health -- Periodicals; 616.69005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.04.634
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1743-6095

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Pelvic radiation is a known risk factor for the development and progression of erectile dysfunction. When medical therapy fails, the 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) can offer patients a definitive treatment option. Because of radiation-induced vascular changes and tissue fibrosis, a careful surgical approach is necessary to avoid intraoperative complications and attain successful outcomes. Despite its widespread use in prostate cancer treatment, there are no contemporary studies examining the effects that pelvic radiation can have on 3-piece IPP placement and device survival. Aim: To present technical considerations and contemporary outcomes of placing a 3-piece IPP for refractory erectile dysfunction in patients with a history of pelvic radiation. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 78 patients who underwent placement of a 3-piece IPP (AMS 700; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) after being treated with pelvic radiotherapy from 2003 through 2016. All patients had been treated with external beam and/or brachytherapy for treatment of prostate malignancy. An infrapubic approach was used in all patients, with reservoir placement in the space of Retzius or in the lateral retroperitoneal space. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes including prosthetic infection and mechanical failure were examined and statistical analysis was performed. Outcomes: Rates of device infection, revision surgery, and reservoir complications. Results: No intraoperative complications were observed. After a mean follow-up of 49.0 months (6.6–116.8), 2 patients developed an infection of their prosthesis that required explantation. These patients underwent successful IPP removal and immediate reimplantation. 11 patients (14.1%) required revision surgery (pump replacement, n = 4; pump relocation, n = 2; cylinder replacement, n = 4; reservoir replacement owing to leak, n = 1). No reservoir-related complications such as herniation or erosion into adjacent structures were observed. Clinical Implications: The 3-piece IPP can be placed safely in a broad range of patients treated with pelvic radiotherapy. Strengths and Limitations: This study describes contemporary long-term outcomes of the IPP in patients treated with pelvic radiation and includes patients with prior pelvic surgery and artificial urinary sphincter, which are commonly encountered in practice. It is limited by its single-center experience and lacks a comparison group of patients. Objective patient satisfaction data were not available for inclusion. Conclusions: The 3-piece IPP can be placed successfully in patients with a history of pelvic radiation without a significant increase in infectious complications, reservoir erosion, or mechanical failure compared with the global literature.