Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Practice patterns of urologists performing penile prosthesis surgery vary based on surgeon volume: results of a practice pattern survey

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 22, pages 262–266 (2010)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) are widely accepted as a means of surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction. It has been suggested that surgeon volume influences patient outcomes after IPP implantation. We used a written questionnaire to ask urologists who perform IPP surgery about their practice patterns. Our analysis correlated specific practices to self-reported IPP volume. A written questionnaire was distributed to 1968 urologists. Responses were collated and analyzed. Respondents were defined as high volume implanters (HVIs) if they placed ⩾20 IPPs in the year preceding the survey, or low volume implanters (LVIs) if they placed ⩽19. Our main outcome measures were surgeon volume, approach to initial IPP placement (penoscrotal vs infrapubic), strategy for reservoir management during IPP revision surgery, strategy for reservoir replacement when deemed necessary, approach to suspected IPP infections, and utilization of revision washout protocols. This study does not require institutional review board approval from our institution, given that patient information is not used at all, this is a practitioner survey only. HVIs were significantly more likely to incorporate both penoscrotal and suprapubic approaches into their armamentarium, more likely to manipulate previously placed IPP reservoirs during revision surgery, and more likely to operate immediately when confronted with a suspected IPP infection. They were also more likely than LVIs to use the Mulcahy revision washout protocol. There are significant differences in the self-reported practice patterns of HVIs and LVIs. The importance of these differences for patient outcomes remains undefined.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hellstrom WJ, Montague DK, Moncada I, Carson C, Minhas S, Faria G . Krishnamurti SImplants mechanical devices, vascular surgery for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2010; 7 (1 pt 2): 501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA . Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med 2007; 4: 1074–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carson CC . Diagnosis, treatment, prevention of penile prosthesis infection. Int J Impot Res 2003; 15 (Suppl 5): S139–S146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN . Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology 2003; 65: 918–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Henry GD, Kansal NS, Callaway M, Grigsby T, Henderson J, Noble J et al. Centers of excellence concept penile prostheses: an outcome analysis. J Urol 2009; 181: 1264–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Althof SE, Buvat J, Gutkin SW, Belger M, Stothard DR, Fugl-Meyer AR . Sexual satisfaction in men with erectile dysfunction: correlates, potential predictors. J Sex Med 2009; 7 (1 Pt 1): 203–215.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brody S, Costa RM . Satisfaction (sexual life, relationship, and mental health) is associated directly with penile-vaginal intercourse but inversely with other sexual behavior frequencies. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 1947–1954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Henry GD . Historical review of penile prosthesis design and surgical techniques: part 1 of a three-part review series on penile prosthetic surgery. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 675–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ . The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol 1996; 155: 155–157.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilt TJ, Shamliyan TA, Taylor BC, MacDonald R, Kane RL . Association between hospital surgeon radical prostatectomy volume patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Urol 2008; 180: 820–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Savage CJ, Vickers AJ . Low annual caseloads of United States surgeons conducting radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009; 182: 2677–2681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Garber BB, Marcus SM . Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection? Urology 1998; 52: 291–293.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Montague DK, Angermeier KW . Surgical approaches for penile prosthesis infection: penoscrotal vsinfrapubic. Int J Impotence Res 2003; 15 (Suppl 5): S134–S135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kramer AC, Chason J . Residents at the University of Maryland Medical System provide insight to learning infrapubic approach for IPP surgery: relative benefits but novel challenges exposed in first 15 cases. J Sex Med 2009; 7: 1298–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Park JK, Jang SW, Lee SW, Cui Y . Rare complication of multiple revision surgeries of penile prosthesis. J Sex Med 2005; 2: 735–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rajpurkar A, Bianco FF, Al-Omar O, Terlecki R, Dhabuwala C . Fate of the retained reservoir after replacement of 3-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol 2004; 172: 664–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kramer AC, Chason J, Kusakabe A . Report of two cases of bladder perforation caused by reservoir of inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 2064–2067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jiann BP, Ou CW, Lin JT, Hunag JK . Compression of ureter caused by a retained reservoir of penile prosthesis. Int J Impot Res 2006; 18: 316–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Derouet H, Uder M, Freyfogle E, Stoeckle M . Successful conservative treatment of infected penile prostheses. Eur Urol 2002; 41: 66–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mulcahy JJ . Long-term experience with salvage of infected penile implants. J Urol 2000; 163: 481–482.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Mulcahy JJ, Cleves M, Salem EA . Upsizing of inflatable penile implant cylinders in patients with corporal fibrosis. J Sex Med 2006; 3: 736–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    A C Kramer & J Sausville

  2. Management Science Group, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA

    A Schweber

Authors
  1. A C Kramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J Sausville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Schweber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A C Kramer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on International Journal of Impotence Research website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kramer, A., Sausville, J. & Schweber, A. Practice patterns of urologists performing penile prosthesis surgery vary based on surgeon volume: results of a practice pattern survey. Int J Impot Res 22, 262–266 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2010.13

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2010.13

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links