Management of the Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir at time of revision surgery: remove, retain, or recycle?

• Published in: Journal of sexual medicine
• Main Authors: Amini, Armon D, Nealon, Samantha W, Badkhshan, Shervin, Langford, Brian T, Matz, Ethan L, VanDyke, Maia E, Franzen, Bryce P, Morey, Allen F
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 11-11-2024
• DOI: 10.1093/jsxmed/qdae155
• EISSN: 1743-6109
• ISSN: 1743-6095; 1743-6109

Three common strategies exist for managing the inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir during revision surgery: the original reservoir can be (a) removed, (b) deactivated and left in situ, sometimes referred to as "drain and retain" (DR), or (c) validated and reconnected to new cylinders, which we have termed "reservoir recycling" (RR).BACKGROUNDThree common strategies exist for managing the inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir during revision surgery: the original reservoir can be (a) removed, (b) deactivated and left in situ, sometimes referred to as "drain and retain" (DR), or (c) validated and reconnected to new cylinders, which we have termed "reservoir recycling" (RR).To compare the efficacy and safety of the RR approach to penile prosthesis revision against DR and the recommended approach of complete device removal and replacement.AIMTo compare the efficacy and safety of the RR approach to penile prosthesis revision against DR and the recommended approach of complete device removal and replacement.A retrospective chart review of our single-surgeon inflatable penile prosthesis database between 2007 and 2022 was performed, identifying revision surgeries. Cases were stratified by reservoir management technique. Patients who had undergone at least 1 follow-up visit and had complete documentation regarding reservoir handling were included. Reservoir-related complications necessitating surgical intervention such as infection and device failure were compared between the 3 groups using a chi-square test. Mean follow-up duration, time to revision, and operative time were also assessed.METHODSA retrospective chart review of our single-surgeon inflatable penile prosthesis database between 2007 and 2022 was performed, identifying revision surgeries. Cases were stratified by reservoir management technique. Patients who had undergone at least 1 follow-up visit and had complete documentation regarding reservoir handling were included. Reservoir-related complications necessitating surgical intervention such as infection and device failure were compared between the 3 groups using a chi-square test. Mean follow-up duration, time to revision, and operative time were also assessed.The primary outcome was the incidence of reservoir-related complications requiring surgical intervention and secondary outcomes included time to revision surgery and operative time.OUTCOMESThe primary outcome was the incidence of reservoir-related complications requiring surgical intervention and secondary outcomes included time to revision surgery and operative time.Among 140 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 62 underwent full reservoir replacement (FR), 48 DR, and 30 RR. Compared to FR, DR and RR groups had similar mean time to revision and intraoperative time. Follow-up duration was similarly limited for all 3 groups at a median of approximately 4.5 months. There were no postoperative infections in the RR cohort. However, when compared to the DR and FR groups, this did not reach significance (P = .398). There was no difference in mechanical failure rate between the 3 groups (P = .059). Nonmechanical failure was also similar between all 3 groups (P = .165).RESULTSAmong 140 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 62 underwent full reservoir replacement (FR), 48 DR, and 30 RR. Compared to FR, DR and RR groups had similar mean time to revision and intraoperative time. Follow-up duration was similarly limited for all 3 groups at a median of approximately 4.5 months. There were no postoperative infections in the RR cohort. However, when compared to the DR and FR groups, this did not reach significance (P = .398). There was no difference in mechanical failure rate between the 3 groups (P = .059). Nonmechanical failure was also similar between all 3 groups (P = .165).These results suggest that RR exhibits comparable outcomes to DR and FR, making it a viable option during select penile prosthesis revision surgeries, potentially decreasing morbidity without compromising outcomes.CLINICAL IMPLICATIONSThese results suggest that RR exhibits comparable outcomes to DR and FR, making it a viable option during select penile prosthesis revision surgeries, potentially decreasing morbidity without compromising outcomes.This is the first study to evaluate outcomes after RR. Limitations include small sample size, limited follow-up, and single-surgeon experience.STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONSThis is the first study to evaluate outcomes after RR. Limitations include small sample size, limited follow-up, and single-surgeon experience.There was no difference in reservoir-related complications when comparing the 3 methods. These preliminary results suggest that reservoir recycling may provide a safe and effective reservoir-handling alternative in inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery.CONCLUSIONThere was no difference in reservoir-related complications when comparing the 3 methods. These preliminary results suggest that reservoir recycling may provide a safe and effective reservoir-handling alternative in inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery.