Search

Objective: To evaluate the distance from critical pelvic structures (CPS, defined as bladder and iliac vessels) among inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs placed into the space of Retzius (SOR) and high submuscular (HSM) locations using cross-sectional imaging. IPP reservoir placement into the HSM location has been proposed as a strategy to prevent injury due to greater distance from CPS., Methods: Our institutional database was retrospectively reviewed to identify men who underwent IPP insertion between 2007 and 2020 and had available cross-sectional abdominopelvic imaging after the time of surgery. Patients were grouped based on reservoir placement technique (SOR vs. HSM). Staff radiologists blinded to placement technique evaluated reservoir position to determine the shortest distance between CPS and the reservoir and if a mass effect was present on CPS. Variables were analyzed using chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and student's T-tests as indicated., Results: Among 1,010 IPP cases performed during the study interval, 139 (13%) were imaged. Compared with SOR reservoirs (n = 32), HSM reservoirs (n =107) were significantly less likely to induce a mass effect on the bladder (72 vs. 9%, P = <.01) or iliac vessels (34 vs. 4%, P = <.01) and were located roughly 5 times further from the bladder (10 ± 22 vs. 49 ± 36 mm, P = <.01) and iliac vessels (5 ± 9 vs. 23 ± 26 mm, P = <.01)., Conclusion: This study radiographically confirms that IPP reservoirs are located significantly further away from CPS following HSM placement compared to SOR placement., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Please copy this Conflict of Interest form and paste into your word processing software, type in each author and either indicate “no conflict” or specify any conflicts; it will be required that you submit the completed form (with all authors indicated) with the revised manuscript. Please list only conflicts of interest specific to this manuscript.Mehraban Kavoussi: No ConflictGrayden S. Cook: No ConflictShaun M. Nordeck: No ConflictBenjamin M. Dropkin: No ConflictGregory A. Joice: No ConflictSarah C. Sanders: No ConflictSteven J. Hudak: Dr. Steven Hudak is a paid speaker and consultant for Boston Scientific CorporationJeffrey H. Pruitt: No ConflictAllen F. Morey: Dr. Allen Morey receives honoraria for being a guest lecturer/meeting participant for Boston Scientific and Coloplast Corp., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs are typically placed into the Space of Retzius (SOR) or alternative locations including the High Submuscular (HSM) space via transinguinal (TI) or counter incision (CI) techniques. A cadaver study showed variability in reservoir location after TI-HSM placement., Aim: To evaluate reservoir location using cross-sectional imaging following IPP insertion., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database and identified men who underwent virgin penoscrotal IPP insertion between 2007 and 2019. We then identified those men who subsequently underwent cross-sectional imaging prior to October 2019. Radiologists evaluated cross-sectional imaging in a blinded manner and categorized reservoir locations as follows: 1) submuscular; 2) posterior to the external oblique fascia and lateral to the rectus abdominis musculature; 3) preperitoneal; 4) retroperitoneal; 5) intraperitoneal; 6) inguinal canal; 7) subcutaneous. Patients were stratified by reservoir placement technique, transinguinal space of Retzius (TI-SOR), transinguinal high submuscular (TI-HSM), or counterincision high submuscular (CI-HSM). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were reviewed and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests., Outcomes: Variability exists in the TI placement of SOR and HSM reservoirs, CI-HSM reservoirs were associated with a low level of variability., Results: Among 561 men who underwent virgin IPP insertion during the 12-year study period, 114 had postoperative cross-sectional imaging (29 TI-SOR, 80 TI-HSM, and 5 CI-HSM). Among the 114 patients imaged, TI-HSM reservoirs were more likely than TI-SOR to be located anterior to the transversalis fascia (48 vs 14%, P < .01) and were less likely to be located in the preperitoneal space (18 vs 62%, P < .01). Rates of intraperitoneal reservoir location were similar between the TI-HSM and TI-SOR groups (5 vs 7%, P = .66). Among imaged CI-HSM reservoirs, 4 (80%) were anterior to the transversalis fascia and 1 (20%) was within the inguinal canal. Among all 536 transinguinal cases (131 TI-SOR and 405 TI-HSM), rates of reservoir-related complications requiring operative intervention were similar between groups (5 vs 2%, P = .24). No complications were noted among the 25 patients in the CI-HSM cohort., Clinical Implications: The level of variability seen in this study did not seem to impact patient safety, complications were rare in all cohorts., Strengths and Limitations: This study is the first and largest of its kind in evaluating reservoir positioning in live patients with long-term follow-up. This study is limited in its retrospective and nonrandomized nature., Conclusions: Despite variability with both TI-HSM and TI-SOR techniques, reservoir related complications remain rare. Kavoussi M, Cook G, Nordeck S, et al. Radiographic Assessment of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Location Variability in Contemporary Practice. J Sex Med 2021;18:2039-2044., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Over the past decade, high submuscular (HSM) placement of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs has emerged as a viable alternative to space of Retzius (SOR) placement; however, data comparing the feasibility and complications of HSM vs SOR reservoir removal do not presently exist., Aim: To present a comparison of the safety, feasibility, and ease of removal of HSM vs SOR reservoirs in a tertiary care, university-based, high-volume prosthetic urology practice., Methods: Data were retrospectively collected on patients who underwent IPP reservoir removal between January 2011 and June 2020. Cases were separated into 2 cohorts based on reservoir location. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact and Chi-squared tests for categorical variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables. Timing from IPP insertion to explant was compared between the HSM and SOR groups using the Mann-Whitney U test., Outcomes: Time from IPP insertion to explant, operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and need for a counter incision were compared between the HSM and SOR groups., Results: Between January 2011 and June 2020, 106 (73 HSM, 33 SOR) patients underwent IPP removal or replacement by a single surgeon at our institution. Average time from IPP insertion to removal was 43.6 months (24.2 HSM, 52.7 SOR, P = .07)-reservoir removal occurred at the time of device explant in 70 of 106 (66%) cases. More HSM reservoirs were explanted at the time of IPP removal compared with the SOR cohort (54 of 73, 74% HSM vs 16 of 33, 48.5% SOR, P = .01). Similar rates of complications were noted between the HSM and SOR groups (1.9% vs 6.3%, P = .35). There was no significant difference in need for counter incision between the 2 groups (24 [42%] HSM vs 4 [25%] SOR, P = .16) or in average operative times (76.5 ± 38.3 minutes HSM vs 68.1 ± 34.3 minutes SOR, P = .52)., Clinical Implications: Our experience with explanting HSM reservoirs supports the safety and ease of their removal., Strengths and Limitations: Although the absolute cohort size is relatively low, this study reflects one of the largest single-institution experiences examining penile implant reservoir removal. In addition, reservoir location was not randomized but was instead determined by which patients presented with complications necessitating reservoir removal during the study period., Conclusions: HSM reservoir removal has comparable perioperative complication rates and operative times when compared with SOR reservoir removal. Kavoussi M, Bhanvadia RR, VanDyke ME, et al. Explantation of High Submuscular Reservoirs: Safety and Practical Considerations. J Sex Med 2020;17:2488-2494., (Copyright © 2020 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: High submuscular (HSM) placement of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs is a promising new FDA approved alternative to traditional space of Retzius reservoir placement. In 2011, we began placing all reservoirs in a HSM position at our tertiary center. In 2014, we proposed a refined, "Five-Step" HSM reservoir placement technique (FST) to prevent deep pelvic complications., Objectives: To describe our HSM technique and report on our extended experience., Material: Our refined FST was developed to optimize outcomes and includes the following steps: (1) Position and Access; (2) Develop Lower HSM Pocket; (3) Develop Upper HSM Pocket; (4) Reservoir Delivery (Fill and Fine-Tune); (5) Confirm and Connect. Data was retrospectively collected on patients undergoing reservoir placement by FST between January 2014 and June 2019. A survey analyzing subjective outcomes and patient satisfaction was performed among 100 randomly selected patients., Results: We placed 297 consecutive HSM IPP reservoirs via FST during this time period. Three patients (1.0%) required surgical revision (all for herniation). No deep pelvic (vascular, bladder, bowel) complications were reported. Of the 100 patients that were randomly surveyed, 86% of patients reported no palpability of the reservoir, and 95% of patients reported satisfaction with the procedure and would recommend the procedure to a friend., Conclusion: The FST for HSM reservoir placement is a simple and safe procedure with good outcomes and excellent patient satisfaction. This technique appears to effectively eliminate the risks of deep pelvic complications., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: To compare our extended experience with high submuscular (HSM) reservoir placement to traditional space of Retzius (SOR) placement and to present our current, refined 'Five-Step' technique (FST) for HSM placement., Patients and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected on patients undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement between January 2009 and June 2019. Re-operative cases were excluded. Reservoir-related complications and subsequent revisions were compared between SOR (2009-2012) and HSM reservoir groups (2012-2019). HSM patients were subdivided into two cohorts: 'Initial Technique' (2012-2014) and FST (2014-2019). The refined FST protocol was developed in 2014 to optimise outcomes and includes the following steps: (i) Position and Access; (ii) Develop Lower HSM Pocket; (iii) Develop Upper HSM Pocket; (iv) Reservoir Delivery (fill and fine-tune); (v) Confirm and Connect., Results: Between January 2009 and June 2019, 733 total IPP procedures (586 HSM, 147 SOR) were performed by a single surgeon at our institution, 561 of which were virgin cases (430 HSM, 131 SOR) and included in this analysis. Overall, surgical revision was required in 10/430 (2.3%) HSM cases (one delayed bowel obstruction, nine herniations) and six of 131 (4.6%) SOR cases (one bladder erosion, two vascular injuries, and three herniations, P = 0.22). When comparing the FST to the Initial Technique, we noted a significant decrease in complications requiring surgical revision (P = 0.01). Among 133 cases performed with the Initial Technique, seven (5.3%) required surgical revision (one bowel obstruction after placement into the peritoneal cavity, six herniations). Among 297 FST cases, three (1.0%) required revision, all due to herniation., Conclusion: HSM placement of IPP reservoirs is a safe alternative to traditional SOR placement. Major deep pelvic reservoir complications were minimised using our current refined FST., (© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)