Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Complication rates in concurrent inflatable penile prosthesis and incontinence surgery: Comparing the penoscrotal versus perineal incision approach

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 36, pages 89–93 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to assess the IPP complication rates of patients undergoing placement via perineal incision versus more traditional penoscrotal approach in synchronous dual implantation. We identified 38 patients who underwent dual implantations of an IPP and AUS or urethral sling from 2011 to 2021 at a single tertiary center, 24 via perineal and 14 via penoscrotal incision. All IPP implants were done by a single surgeon. IPP postoperative complications were captured using the Clavien-Dindo classification at three separate time points, < 30 days, 30 days – 6 months, and > 6 months. The perineal group had two complications, IPP explantation due to rectourethral fistula (Grade III, > 6 months), and IPP explantation due to chronic genital pain (Grade III, > 6 months). The penoscrotal group had three complications, post-operative urinary retention requiring catheterization (Grade I, < 30 days), incision site infection (Grade I, < 30 days), and IPP explantation due to infection (Grade III, 30 days to < 6 months). There was no statistically significant difference in rate of patients with IPP complications between the two groups (p = 0.546) or in rate of IPP device malfunction (p = 0.264). These preliminary findings suggest that the single perineal incision is a viable surgical approach in synchronous dual implantation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Diagram of patient selection.
Fig. 2: Patient contact call checklist.
Fig. 3: Intraoperative surgical photos.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Dick B, Tsambarlis P, Reddy A, Hellstrom WJ. An update on: Long-term outcomes of penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019;16:281–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Trost LW, Boonjindasup AG, Hellstrom WJG. Comparison of infrapubic versus transcrotal approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institution report. Int J Impot Res. 2015;27:86–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Houlihan MD, Köhler TS, Wilson SK, Hatzichristodoulou G. Penoscrotal approach for IPP: Still up-to-date after more than 40 years? Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:2–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Krzastek SC, Smith R. An update on the best approaches to prevent complications in penile prosthesis recipients. Ther Adv Urol. 2019;11:1756287218818076.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Garber BB, Marcus SM. Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection? Urology. 1998;52:291–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kabalin JN, Kessler R. Infectious complications of penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol. 1988;139:953–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Palmisano F, Boeri L, Cristini C, Antonini G, Spinelli MG, Franco G, et al. Comparison of Infrapubic vs Penoscrotal Approaches for 3-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement: Do We Have a Winner? Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:631–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hebert KJ, Kohler TS. Penile prosthesis infection: Myths and realities. World J Men’s Health. 2019;37:276–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hartman RP, Kawashima A, Takahashi N, LeRoy AJ, King BF. Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP): Diagnosis of complications. Abdom Radio (NY). 2016;41:1187–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dadhich P, Hockenberry M, Kirby EW, Lipshultz L. Penile prosthesis in the management of erectile dysfunction following cancer therapy. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:S883–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Jordan S, Hendry J, Al-Ansari A, Talib R, Yassin A, Aboumarzouk OM. Synchronous placement of penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter: a systematic review with cumulative analysis. J Men’s Health. 2021;17:30–6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Baird BA, Parikh K, Broderick G. Penile implant infection factors: a contemporary narrative review of literature. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10:3873–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Mancini JG, Kizer WS, Jones LA, Mora RV, Morey AF. Patient satisfaction after dual implantation of inflatable penile and artificial urinary sphincter prostheses. Urology 2008;71:893–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mykoniatis I, Albersen M, Andrianne R, Sokolakis I, Hatzichristodoulou G, Sempels M, et al. Synchronous surgery for the combined treatment of post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence: a lucrative evolution or an unnecessary complexity? Int J Impot Res. 2021;33:6–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gorbatiy V, Westney OL, Romero C, Wang R. Outcomes of simultaneous placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis and a male urethral sling through a single perineal incision. J Sex Med. 2010;7:832–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kendirci M, Gupta S, Shaw K, Morey A, Jones L, Hakim L, et al. Synchronous prosthetic implantation through a transscrotal incision: an outcome analysis. J Urol. 2006;175:2218–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Martínez-Salamanca JI, Espinós EL, Moncada I, Portillo LD, Carballido J. Management of end-stage erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy by simultaneous dual implantation using a single trans-scrotal incision: surgical technique and outcomes. Asian J Androl. 2015;17:792–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kumar R, Nehra A. Dual implantation of penile and sphincter implants in the post-prostatectomy patient. Curr Urol Rep. 2007;8:477–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boysen WR, Cohen AJ, Kuchta K, Park S, Milose J. Combined placement of artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis does not increase risk of perioperative complications or impact long-term device survival. Urology 2019;124:264–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zafirakis H, Wang R, Westney OL. Combination therapy for male erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. Asian J Androl. 2008;10:149–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, Levine F, Burnett AL, McVary K, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1999;53:793–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:203–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bratu O, Oprea I, Marcu D, Spinu D, Niculae A, Geavlete B, et al. Erectile dysfunction post-radical prostatectomy - a challenge for both patient and physician. J Med Life. 2017;10:13–18.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Saleh A, Abboudi H, Ghazal-Aswad M, Mayer EK, Vale JA. Management of erectile dysfunction post-radical prostatectomy. Res Rep. Urol. 2015;7:19–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sellers CL, Morey AF, Jones LA. Cost and time benefits of dual implantation of inflatable penile and artificial urinary sphincter prosthetics by single incision. Urology. 2005;65:852–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rhee EY. Technique for concomitant implantation of the penile prosthesis with the male sling. J Urol. 2005;173:925–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilson S, Delk J 2nd, Henry GD, Siegel AL. New surgical technique for sphincter urinary control system using upper transverse scrotal incision. J Urol. 2003;169:261–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Kyle A Blum, Justin P Mehr.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX, USA

    Kyle A. Blum, Justin P. Mehr, Travis P. Green, Kirema Macharia, Daniel Kim & Run Wang

  2. Department of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Kyle A. Blum, Travis P. Green, O. Lenaine Westney & Run Wang

Authors
  1. Kyle A. Blum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justin P. Mehr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Travis P. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kirema Macharia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. O. Lenaine Westney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Run Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KB—Design, Data Collection, Drafting. JM—Data Collection, Drafting. TG—Design, Editing, Supervision. KM—Data Collection, Editing. DK—Data Collection, Editing. OLM—Editing, Supervision. RW—Design, Editing, Supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Run Wang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blum, K.A., Mehr, J.P., Green, T.P. et al. Complication rates in concurrent inflatable penile prosthesis and incontinence surgery: Comparing the penoscrotal versus perineal incision approach. Int J Impot Res 36, 89–93 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00628-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00628-7

Search

Advanced search

Quick links