Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score‐matched comparison
Giovanni Battista Di Pierro, A. Lemma, Giovanni Di Lascio, Alessandro El Motassime, Pietro Grande, Ivan Di Giulio, Stefano Salciccia, Martina Maggi, Gabriele Antonini, Ettore De Berardinis, C. Cristini, Alessandro Sciarra
Abstract
Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) provides excellent outcomes after virgin implants. However, few data on IPP after revision surgery are available. This study aimed at comparing the outcomes of IPP in patients undergoing primary or revision implant surgery. Patients who underwent revision implant surgery (Group 1) between 2013 and 2020 were identified. Overall, 20 patients (Group 1) could be matched with a contemporary matched pair cohort of surgery-naive patients (Group 2) in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in Group 2 had a significantly shorter operative time [median (IQR): 84 (65-97) vs. 65 (51-75) min; p = .01] and lower rate of overall complications (25% vs. 10%; p = .01). Of note, mean (SD) scores for the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaire demonstrated high satisfaction and IPP efficacy in both Groups 1 and 2: functional domain [3.9 (1.0) vs. 4.0 (1.2); p = .4], personal [3.9 (1.1) vs. 4.0 (1.1); p = .3], relational [3.8 (1.3) vs. 3.9 (1.1); p = .5] and social [3.9 (1.1) vs. 4.0 (1.2); p = .2]. These results suggest that in experienced hands, IPP offers high satisfaction to both patients and partners even in the setting of revision implant. However, it is mandatory to inform those patients about the increased risk of perioperative complications.