Implant Selection Patterns And Reoperation Rates In Immunocompromised Patients That Underwent Penile Prosthesis Surgery

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Surgical Therapy I1 Apr 2018PD18-12 IMPLANT SELECTION PATTERNS AND REOPERATION RATES IN IMMUNOCOMPROMISED PATIENTS THAT UNDERWENT PENILE PROSTHESIS SURGERY Denise Asafu-Adjei, George Moran, Michael Lipsky, Gen Li, Doron Stember, and Peter J. Stahl Denise Asafu-AdjeiDenise Asafu-Adjei More articles by this author , George MoranGeorge Moran More articles by this author , Michael LipskyMichael Lipsky More articles by this author , Gen LiGen Li More articles by this author , Doron StemberDoron Stember More articles by this author , and Peter J. StahlPeter J. Stahl More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.989AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Immunocompromised patients pose unique challenges for penile implant surgeons as their status could increase their infectious risk. HIV and solid organ transplant patients were the index populations for this study as they compromise major immunocompromised groups. Our objective was to describe practice patterns and surgical outcomes of penile prosthesis (PP) surgery in the solid organ transplant and HIV seropositive populations. Trends of the type of penile prosthetic patients in HIV patients and solid organ transplant patients have not been described. METHODS The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database was queried for ICD and CPT codes indicating insertion or replacement of malleable or inflatable PP from 1995-2014. Patients with HIV, history of kidney, heart, liver, lung, and pancreas transplants were identified by ICD codes. Reoperations were identified by ICD and CPT codes for prosthesis removal, repair, or replacement. Descriptive statistics relating to practice patterns and surgical outcomes were generated. Reoperation rates in the index populations versus people without HIV or solid organ transplants were compared by Chi-square testing. RESULTS 214 immunocompromised patients underwent PP surgery during the study period, including 123 patients with solid organ transplants and 91 HIV positive patients. Implant selection patterns are depicted in the accompanying table. Reoperation rates in the immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised cohorts were 15% and 12.6%, respectively (p=0.35). Reoperations for infection occurred in 7.9% of immunocompromised PP recipients and in 2.5% of non-immunocompromised PP (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS This is the first report of PP outcomes in immunocompromised recipients based on population based data. We did observe a higher rate of infection in the immunocompromised cohort, but the overall reoperation rate was similar to that observed in the general population. These data suggest an acceptable safety profile for PP surgery in this high risk population. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e394 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Denise Asafu-Adjei More articles by this author George Moran More articles by this author Michael Lipsky More articles by this author Gen Li More articles by this author Doron Stember More articles by this author Peter J. Stahl More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...