Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Patient Outcomes After Penile Prosthesis Placement with Concomitant Non-Reconstructive Urologic Procedures
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Patient Outcomes After Penile Prosthesis Placement with Concomitant Non-Reconstructive Urologic Procedures
Do you wish to request the book?
Patient Outcomes After Penile Prosthesis Placement with Concomitant Non-Reconstructive Urologic Procedures
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Patient Outcomes After Penile Prosthesis Placement with Concomitant Non-Reconstructive Urologic Procedures
2025
Overview
ABSTRACT Purpose: There is substantial literature demonstrating minimal to no increased risk of three-piece penile prosthesis (PP) complications for patients undergoing placement with concomitant reconstructive urologic procedures. However, there is a paucity of research investigating outcomes for patients suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) who undergo concomitant non-reconstructive urologic procedures at the time of PP placement. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing PP placement and a second non-reconstructive urologic procedure performed concomitantly at our institution between January 2007 and July 2021. This was compared to a control cohort of 127 patients who underwent PP placement only. Outcomes of interest were complications and device infections. Comparative statistics were used to compare the two groups, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the rate of complications and infections over time. Results: We identified 44 patients who underwent concomitant surgery and 127 patients who underwent single surgery only. The types of concomitant surgeries were as follows: 23 endoscopic (52.3%), 9 penile (20.5%), 10 scrotal (22.7%), 1 hardware placement (2.3%), and 1 oncologic (2.3%). Hypertension was the only comorbidity that was more prevalent in the concomitant group (65.9% vs. 43.8%, P<0.01). Patients undergoing concomitant surgery had similar complication (4.6% vs. 3.6%, P=0.79) and device infection (2.3% vs. 0.7%, P=0.43) rates as the single surgery group. Conclusions: In the largest study of its kind, we observed that patients undergoing concomitant non-reconstructive urologic procedures at the time of PP placement are not at an increased risk of adverse events.
Publisher
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
Subject
