Int Braz J Urol. 2025 Mar-Apr;51(2):e20240332. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0332.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: There is substantial literature demonstrating minimal to no increased risk of three-piece penile prosthesis (PP) complications for patients undergoing placement with concomitant reconstructive urologic procedures. However, there is a paucity of research investigating outcomes for patients suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) who undergo concomitant non-reconstructive urologic procedures at the time of PP placement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing PP placement and a second non-reconstructive urologic procedure performed concomitantly at our institution between January 2007 and July 2021. This was compared to a control cohort of 127 patients who underwent PP placement only. Outcomes of interest were complications and device infections. Comparative statistics were used to compare the two groups, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the rate of complications and infections over time.
RESULTS: We identified 44 patients who underwent concomitant surgery and 127 patients who underwent single surgery only. The types of concomitant surgeries were as follows: 23 endoscopic (52.3%), 9 penile (20.5%), 10 scrotal (22.7%), 1 hardware placement (2.3%), and 1 oncologic (2.3%). Hypertension was the only comorbidity that was more prevalent in the concomitant group (65.9% vs. 43.8%, P < 0.01). Patients undergoing concomitant surgery had similar complication (4.6% vs. 3.6%, P=0.79) and device infection (2.3% vs. 0.7%, P=0.43) rates as the single surgery group.
CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study of its kind, we observed that patients undergoing concomitant non-reconstructive urologic procedures at the time of PP placement are not at an increased risk of adverse events.
PMID:39913091 | DOI:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0332
