1668 COMPARISON OF INFRAPUBIC VERSUS TRANSCROTAL APPROACHES FOR INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS PLACEMENT: A MULTI-INSTITUTION REPORT

摘要

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction/Andrology: Peyronie Disease + Surgical Therapy1 Apr 20131668 COMPARISON OF INFRAPUBIC VERSUS TRANSCROTAL APPROACHES FOR INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS PLACEMENT: A MULTI-INSTITUTION REPORT Landon Trost, Aaron Boonjindasup, and Wayne Hellstrom Landon TrostLandon Trost Rochester, MN More articles by this author , Aaron BoonjindasupAaron Boonjindasup New Orleans, LA More articles by this author , and Wayne HellstromWayne Hellstrom New Orleans, LA More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.3082AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) are most commonly placed via infrapubic or transcrotal approaches. Currently, no studies compare surgical outcomes between these techniques. The objective of the current study is to compare results of IPPs placed via an infrapubic versus transcrotal approach. METHODS High volume surgeons placing the Titan 0-degree prosthesis from March-July 2012 completed questionnaires. Variables recorded included patient pre-operative characteristics, intra-operative variables, and overall subjective experience with the new device. Resultant data was compared between surgeons performing an infrapubic versus transcrotal approach for total length of prosthesis, length of proximal and distal measurements, size of rear tip extenders (RTEs), volume of reservoir inserted, amount of reservoir fluid instilled, and ability to successfully place the reservoir in the space of Retzius. RESULTS Forty-six surgeons placed 256 IPPs, with a median of 5 (range 1-10) inserted. Surgical approach was listed in 220 cases, with transcrotal performed most commonly (80%). Revision procedures accounted for 13% of cases, with 19% of patients overall previously undergoing robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Compared to the infrapubic approach, transcrotal placement resulted in a longer total prosthesis (22.3cm vs. 20.6cm, p<0.0001), increased proximal dilation (10.1cm vs. 8.6cm, p<0.0001), longer RTEs (1.9cm vs. 1.2cm, p<0.0001), and larger reservoir fill volume (79cc vs. 71cc, p=0.0003). No differences were noted in distal measurements or ability to place the reservoir in the space of Retzius. CONCLUSIONS Compared to the infrapubic approach, high-volume surgeons placing the Titan 0-degree IPP transcrotally achieved increased proximal dilation with an approximately 1-2 cm longer prosthesis inserted. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e686 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Landon Trost Rochester, MN More articles by this author Aaron Boonjindasup New Orleans, LA More articles by this author Wayne Hellstrom New Orleans, LA More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...