Cargando…
Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score‐matched comparison
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 s...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9285038/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34498769 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/and.14240 |
_version_ | 1784747695595847680 |
---|---|
author | Di Pierro, Giovanni Battista Lemma, Andrea Di Lascio, Giovanni El Motassime, Alessandro Grande, Pietro Di Giulio, Ivan Salciccia, Stefano Maggi, Martina Antonini, Gabriele De Berardinis, Ettore Cristini, Cristiano Sciarra, Alessandro |
author_facet | Di Pierro, Giovanni Battista Lemma, Andrea Di Lascio, Giovanni El Motassime, Alessandro Grande, Pietro Di Giulio, Ivan Salciccia, Stefano Maggi, Martina Antonini, Gabriele De Berardinis, Ettore Cristini, Cristiano Sciarra, Alessandro |
author_sort | Di Pierro, Giovanni Battista |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9285038 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92850382022-07-15 Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score‐matched comparison Di Pierro, Giovanni Battista Lemma, Andrea Di Lascio, Giovanni El Motassime, Alessandro Grande, Pietro Di Giulio, Ivan Salciccia, Stefano Maggi, Martina Antonini, Gabriele De Berardinis, Ettore Cristini, Cristiano Sciarra, Alessandro Andrologia Original Articles 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-09-09 2021-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9285038/ /pubmed/34498769 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/and.14240 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Andrologia published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Di Pierro, Giovanni Battista Lemma, Andrea Di Lascio, Giovanni El Motassime, Alessandro Grande, Pietro Di Giulio, Ivan Salciccia, Stefano Maggi, Martina Antonini, Gabriele De Berardinis, Ettore Cristini, Cristiano Sciarra, Alessandro Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score‐matched comparison |
title | Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score‐matched comparison |
title_full | Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score‐matched comparison |
title_fullStr | Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score‐matched comparison |
title_full_unstemmed | Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score‐matched comparison |
title_short | Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: A propensity score‐matched comparison |
title_sort | primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: a propensity score‐matched comparison |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9285038/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34498769 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/and.14240 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dipierrogiovannibattista primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT lemmaandrea primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT dilasciogiovanni primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT elmotassimealessandro primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT grandepietro primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT digiulioivan primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT salcicciastefano primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT maggimartina primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT antoninigabriele primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT deberardinisettore primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT cristinicristiano primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison AT sciarraalessandro primaryversusrevisionimplantforinflatablepenileprosthesisapropensityscorematchedcomparison |