Penile prosthesis and complications: Results from 577 implants

• Main Authors: Diego Pozza, Andrea Marcantonio, Augusto Mosca, Carlotta Pozza
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: PAGEPress Publications 2020-12-01
• Series: Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia
• Subjects: Penile prosthesis surgery; Complications; Infections
• Online Access: https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/9180

Objective: Penile Prosthetic Surgery is already well characterized but the problems connected with possible complications still need to be evaluated and discussed. Material and Methods: The Authors revaluated their experience in Penile Prosthetic Surgery involving 577 patients (18 - 86 years, mean age 51.3 years) operated by the same surgeon since 1984. We implanted 199 silicone-semi-rigid (Small Carrion, Implantal, Eurogest, Subrini, SSDA GS), 200 malleable (Jonas, Omniphase, Duraphase, AMS600, MentorColoplast Genesis, Vedise) and 178 inflatable (Mentor: Mark II, Alpha I, Titan OTR; AMS: mono-component Hydroflex, Dynaflex; bi-component Ambicor; multicomponent: 700 Ultrex, 700 CX, 700 LGX) prostheses. Operative, postoperative, infectious and malfunctioning complications have been recorded. A total of 156 patients drop out at follow-up and we may not exclude possible late complications treated at different hospitals. Results: The recorded complications and the therapeutic modalities utilized to treat them are examined. Operative complications were recorded in 2 malleable prostheses (MPP) and in one inflatable prosthesis (IPP). Postoperative complications have been recorded in three cases of MPP (1.5%) and in 9 IPP (5.0%) and were strictly connected to general medical co-morbidities as diabetes mellitus (DM), coronary artery dysfunction (CAD), and Peyronie’s disease (PD). In three cases of IPP implantation, hematomas were related to the blunt surgical maneuvers utilized to insert the reservoir or the scrotal pumps. Infectious complications were mostly observed in patients with DM: 4 patients with MPP (1.0%) and 15 patients with IPP (8.4%). Malfunction rate of the prostheses in our series was really disappointing considering that 13/17 cases (77%) of mono-component IPP broke while in patients with multicomponent IPP the percentage of malfunction has been of 13/161 (8%) and malfunction was observed in only one case of MPP. We were forced to explant the prostheses in 2 patients with MPP (0.5%) and 40 with IPP (22%). However, after excluding 17 mono-component IPPs, the percentage of explants of multicomponent IPP (23 patients, 4.2%) is in line with other significative experiences. Conclusion: The number of complications of PPS are similar to those reported by well qualified urological institutions. In our experience a scrupulous antibiotic therapeutic schedule, avoiding direct contact between the prostheses and the patient’s skin, reduced time of surgery with surgeon’s experience positively influenced the results.In a limited number of patients medical treatment or minimal surgical acts allowed to solve the complications preserving the prostheses and avoiding the prosthetic explant