Search

Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is an established treatment option for men with erectile dysfunction (ED) refractory to medical therapy. Standardization of surgical technique and improvements in device construction have reduced all-cause complication rates to less than 5% in recent reports. Nonetheless, complications do exist, and can strongly impact morbidity and the quality of life of patients. Prosthetic urologists must be aware of the constellation of complications that can arise during or after IPP placement. Aim To provide a comprehensive review of penile prosthesis complications and discuss preventative strategies, as well as proper preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative decision making. Methods A review of the available literature from 1973 to 2018 was performed using PubMed with regard to IPP complications. Main Outcome Measures We reviewed publications that outlined preoperative planning strategies and the following IPP complications: hematoma, floppy glans, corporal fibrosis, corporal perforation and crossover, urethral injury, infection, impending erosion, and glandular ischemia. Results Careful patient and device selection, setting realistic expectations of postsurgical outcomes, and adherence to a perioperative checklist is essential in the preoperative period. Intraoperatively, anticipate corporal fibrosis situations and always dilate laterally during corporal passage to reduce the risk of crossover and urethral injury. Limit perioperative antiplatelet therapy, apply compressive dressing, use a closed suction drain if indicated, and leave the device partially inflated postoperatively to reduce risk of hematoma. After surgery, monitor patients for potential complications that may warrant device explantation or salvage: IPP infection, glans ischemia, and impending erosion. Conclusions By using evidence and expert opinion-based decision-making strategies in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative period of IPP placement, surgeons can reduce the risk of complications and dissatisfaction, even in ED patients with multiple comorbid conditions. Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, et al. Penile Prosthesis Complications: Planning, Prevention, and Decision Making. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:349–359.

Introduction The dermatologic conditions affecting the male genitalia are diverse and range from normal variants and benign growths to overt malignancy. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of urologic dermatology training in most residency programs, and many dermatologic lesions with a classic appearance on other areas of the body may have atypical presentations on the genitalia. Patients may present to a variety of physicians without receiving a definitive diagnosis, which can be highly distressing to the afflicted individual. Aim To provide sexual medicine physicians tools to aid in the evaluation and diagnosis of urologic dermatology lesions, whether they are limited to the genitalia or part of a widespread systemic disease. Methods Comprehensive review of the literature pertaining to genital dermatology in men. Main Outcome Measure We stratify each condition into 1 of 5 groups (normal variants and benign lesions, inflammatory lesions, transmissible lesions, premalignant lesions, and malignant lesions) and focus on presentation and prevalence of these conditions. Results Sexual medicine physicians should emphasize the non-pathologic nature of normal variants of genital anatomy (ie, penile hyperpigmentation, pearly penile papules) and stress that removal of these lesions is only appropriate for cosmetic purposes. Benign genital growths (ie, sebaceous cysts, seborrheic keratoses) may not require intervention, but they should be monitored for atypical features and infection. In contrast, transmissible (ie, herpes, syphilis) and inflammatory (ie, psoriasis) lesions may necessitate prompt intervention to reduce transmission and complications of late-stage disease. Premalignant and malignant lesions may mimic many of the aforementioned conditions; it is important that patients receive routine follow-up after treatment. All suspicious non-healing or ulcerating lesions should undergo pathologic evaluation to rule out malignancy. Conclusion Urologic dermatology can be a diagnostic challenge for sexual medicine physicians. This review simplifies the diagnostic approach and emphasizes pathologic features of each condition to guide management. Gabrielson AT, Le TV, Fontenot C, et al. Male genital dermatology: A primer for the sexual medicine physician. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:71–83.