Background: The 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard treatment for male erectile dysfunction when other less invasive approaches are contra-indicated or unacceptable for the patient. There are currently 2 surgical approaches for IPP implantation: the penoscrotal (PS) and the infrapubic (IP) incision. Aim: To assess the most recent evidence on the impact of surgical approach for 3-piece IPP implantation in patients with erectile dysfunction. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using the MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane Libraries databases in November 2017 to identify all studies investigating 3-piece IPP with a specified surgical access. Outcomes: The following key words were used in combination: “infrapubic,” “transcrotal,” “penoscrotal,” “peno-scrotal,” and “penile prosthesis.” Additional references were obtained from the reference lists of full-text manuscripts. We used a narrative synthesis for the analyses of the studies. Results: 22 Studies reporting data on 3-piece IPP implantation with a specified surgical approach were found in the literature. While IPPs are most commonly positioned through a PS incision, the IP approach is a faster procedure. No cases of glans hypoesthesia after IPP placement with an IP approach were reported, and the overall peri-prosthetic infection rate was 3.3% or less. Patient satisfaction rates were higher than 80% in both groups. Conclusions: Both the IP and PS approaches are viable and effective strategies for a 3-piece IPP placement, and result in high satisfaction rates. To date there is no evidence that an incision strategy may reduce infection rates. Penile sensory loss following an IP approach remains a virtual risk. It is recommended that the surgeon executing the implant have knowledge of both accesses and be capable of tailoring the incision strategy for complex cases. The chosen method should be based on the patient's specific anatomy, surgical history, and surgeon experience.

Comparison of infrapubic vs penoscrotal approaches for 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement. do we have a winner / Palmisano, Franco; Boeri, Luca; Cristini, Cristiano; Antonini, Gabriele; Spinelli, Matteo Giulio; Franco, Giorgio; Longo, Fabrizio; Gadda, Franco; Colombo, Fulvio; Montanari, Emanuele. - In: SEXUAL MEDICINE REVIEWS. - ISSN 2050-0521. - 6:4(2018), pp. 631-639. [10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.03.007]

Comparison of infrapubic vs penoscrotal approaches for 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement. do we have a winner

Cristini, Cristiano;Antonini, Gabriele;Franco, Giorgio;
2018

Abstract

Background: The 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard treatment for male erectile dysfunction when other less invasive approaches are contra-indicated or unacceptable for the patient. There are currently 2 surgical approaches for IPP implantation: the penoscrotal (PS) and the infrapubic (IP) incision. Aim: To assess the most recent evidence on the impact of surgical approach for 3-piece IPP implantation in patients with erectile dysfunction. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using the MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane Libraries databases in November 2017 to identify all studies investigating 3-piece IPP with a specified surgical access. Outcomes: The following key words were used in combination: “infrapubic,” “transcrotal,” “penoscrotal,” “peno-scrotal,” and “penile prosthesis.” Additional references were obtained from the reference lists of full-text manuscripts. We used a narrative synthesis for the analyses of the studies. Results: 22 Studies reporting data on 3-piece IPP implantation with a specified surgical approach were found in the literature. While IPPs are most commonly positioned through a PS incision, the IP approach is a faster procedure. No cases of glans hypoesthesia after IPP placement with an IP approach were reported, and the overall peri-prosthetic infection rate was 3.3% or less. Patient satisfaction rates were higher than 80% in both groups. Conclusions: Both the IP and PS approaches are viable and effective strategies for a 3-piece IPP placement, and result in high satisfaction rates. To date there is no evidence that an incision strategy may reduce infection rates. Penile sensory loss following an IP approach remains a virtual risk. It is recommended that the surgeon executing the implant have knowledge of both accesses and be capable of tailoring the incision strategy for complex cases. The chosen method should be based on the patient's specific anatomy, surgical history, and surgeon experience.
2018
erectile dysfunction; impotence; infrapubic; penile implant; penile prosthesis; penoscrotal; reproductive medicine; 2708; obstetrics and gynecology; urology
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01g Articolo di rassegna (Review)
Comparison of infrapubic vs penoscrotal approaches for 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement. do we have a winner / Palmisano, Franco; Boeri, Luca; Cristini, Cristiano; Antonini, Gabriele; Spinelli, Matteo Giulio; Franco, Giorgio; Longo, Fabrizio; Gadda, Franco; Colombo, Fulvio; Montanari, Emanuele. - In: SEXUAL MEDICINE REVIEWS. - ISSN 2050-0521. - 6:4(2018), pp. 631-639. [10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.03.007]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Palmisano_Comparison-infrapubic-penoscrotal_2018.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 351.83 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
351.83 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1197076
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 35
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 34
social impact