Search

Background: The penile prosthesis has been used for men with erectile dysfunction for nearly 5 decades. Although many articles examine various outcome measures, wide variability exists in the quality of these studies., Aim: We sought to critically evaluate the most referenced literature related to penile prosthesis outcomes over the last 10 years., Methods: A PubMed search of the indexed English literature was performed using the search terms "prospective," "penile prosthesis," and "outcomes", and all relevant publications from 2009 to 2019 were reviewed. In addition, we performed a Google Scholar search for the same interval using the search term "penile prosthesis outcomes" to evaluate manuscripts which have been most commonly cited. The most heavily cited manuscripts were sorted for relevancy using Google's internal algorithm, and then, the articles were reviewed by the authorship team for appropriateness of the subject matter. Articles with less than 10 citations were excluded. We used the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Criteria as part of our evaluation of the published data involving independent research, as opposed to review articles summarizing previously published findings., Results: We evaluated the most-cited literature of the past decade relevant to penile prosthesis outcomes and reported the major findings in regards to infection, erosion, extrusion, device reliability, and satisfaction (both the patient and partner). The majority of these studies are retrospective in nature., Clinical Implications: From our review of the most commonly cited studies, there was no high-level evidence published in this area within the last 10 years. There are multiple barriers to producing these types of studies in the evaluation of penile prosthesis outcomes., Strengths & Limitations: Using the most commonly cited articles allows us to understand the data that are being cited in other new publications. Focusing on the most cited articles on penile prosthesis outcomes in the last 10 years is a limitation as there have been many more studies published in this area., Conclusion: While many studies have examined penile prosthesis outcomes, most of the heavily cited literature consists of low-level evidence. Higher quality research is necessary to better assess penile prosthesis outcomes. Chouhan JD, Pearlman AM, Kovell RC, et al. A Quality Analysis of the Last Decade's Most Heavily Cited Data Relative to Outcomes After Penile Prosthesis Placement. J Sex Med 2020;17:861-869., (Copyright © 2020 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Penile implant surgery continues to be an important option for men with erectile dysfunction. Advancements in technology of implants have contributed to improved survival from mechanical breakdown. Prosthesis infection remains a serious adverse event. For the last 8 years, the Titan implant (Coloplast Corporation, Minneapolis, MN, USA) has been available with an infection-retardant polyvinylpyrrolidone coating., Aim: To compare the infection rates between coated three-piece inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) with the previous non-coated model., Main Outcome Measures: Infection-related revisions reported in the physician-generated, manufacturer-tabulated patient information forms (PIFs)., Methods: PIFs reported into the voluntary, post-market registry of Coloplast Corporation from July 14, 2000 to September 30, 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Infection-related revisions entered into the product evaluation database for coated and non-coated IPPs were compared. Data were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test., Results: The database included 36,391 PIFs related to primary IPP implantation. At 11 years of follow-up, 4.6% (7,031) of non-coated IPPs were removed or replaced due to infections, whereas 1.4% (29,360) of hydrophilic-coated implants reported replacements due to device infections. The hydrophilic coating of the IPP components makes the device slippery and prevents bacterial attachment. The hydrophilic coating allows rapid absorption of antibiotics in an aqueous solution and allows these water-soluble antibiotics to elute off the device into the implant spaces. Unfortunately, information pertaining to what agents were used in the studies patients was not tabulated. The rate of revision due to device infection was reduced 69.56% in patients with hydrophilic-coated IPPs (P<0.001)., Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the longest post-marketing registry report related to IPP infections. At 8 years of follow-up, the hydrophilic-coated IPPs demonstrated a significant reduction in revision rates due to infection when compared with the 11-year follow-up of non-coated implants. Since there was no information or uniformity of antibiotics used in the soaking solution, it is uncertain which antibiotic selection provided the best results. In vitro testing against known infectious agents may further benefit IPP patients by reducing the prosthesis infection rate., (© 2012 International Society for Sexual Medicine.)