Home
Abstract
My Abstract(s)
Login
ePosters
Back
Final Presentation Format
Podium Abstract
Eposter Presentation
Eposter in PDF Format
Accept format: PDF. The file size should not be more than 5MB
Eposter in Image Format
Accept format: PNG/JPG/WEBP. The file size should not be more than 2MB
Presentation Date / Time
Submission Status
Submitted
Abstract
Abstract Title
Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Mechanical Failure Incidence and Pattern: A Single Australian Centre Experience
Presentation Type
Podium Abstract
Manuscript Type
Clinical Research
Abstract Category *
Andrology: Sexual and Erectile Dysfunction
Author's Information
Number of Authors (including submitting/presenting author) *
3
No more than 10 authors can be listed (as per the Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines).
Please ensure the authors are listed in the right order.
Country
Australia
Co-author 1
Yizhou (Charles) Ruan charlesruan7@gmail.com Princess Alexandra Hospital Department of Urology Brisbane Australia *
Co-author 2
Gideon Blecher gideon@drblecher.com Alfred Hospital Department of Urology Melbourne Australia -
Co-author 3
Christopher Love chris@drlove.com.au Homesglen Private Hospital Department of Urology Melbourne Australia -
Co-author 4
-
Co-author 5
-
Co-author 6
-
Co-author 7
-
Co-author 8
-
Co-author 9
-
Co-author 10
-
Co-author 11
Co-author 12
Co-author 13
Co-author 14
Co-author 15
Co-author 16
Co-author 17
Co-author 18
Co-author 19
Co-author 20
Abstract Content
Introduction
Insertion of inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP) is a well-established, safe, and effective surgical treatment option for management of end-stage erectile dysfunction. While there have been progressive advances in device durability and reliability, the hydraulic nature of IPP remains an inherent risk of device failure. Revision surgeries for partial or complete implant exchange are often required to resolve such issues.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective review of all penile prosthesis revision cases in a private urology practice in Melbourne from April 2018 to April 2023 was conducted, identifying patients who received IPP implant surgery (MBS item number 37426) and those who underwent revision surgery (MBS item number 37432).
Results
A total of 218 penile prosthesis revision surgeries were recorded. We identified 82 occurrences of IPP mechanical failure. Of all types, device leak or tear in general was the commonest, accounting for 73% of all the failed implants. 63% and 82% of failed implants failed due to device leak or tear for Boston Scientific and Coloplast respectively. Of all locations of failure, the cylinder was the commonest, accounting for 38% of the failed implants. 62% of the failures for Boston Scientific implants occurred at the cylinder, compared to 21% for Coloplast implants. Overall tubing failure accounted for 29% of the failure, most commonly being failure of the pump-cylinder tubing within 3cm of cylinder, followed by pump cylinder tubing within 3cm of pump.
Conclusions
Our study summarised the pattern and incidence of mechanical failures of inflatable penile prosthesis at our urology practice. These findings may inform clinicians and patients during IPP surgery preoperative counseling and decision-making process, as well as providing important feedback to prosthesis manufacturers regarding the focus of future research and development directions.
Keywords
Erectile dysfunction, penile prosthesis, surgery
Figure 1
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/7c4c3f7a25de86d770e7f836ea94501d.png
Figure 1 Caption
Flow chart and table of overall patient statistics
Figure 2
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/3a444f297b8483345117eccf3cc6a3ea.png
Figure 2 Caption
Pie charts and table of mechanical failure of IPPs
Figure 3
Figure 3 Caption
Figure 4
Figure 4 Caption
Figure 5
Figure 5 Caption
Character Count
2860
Vimeo Link
Presentation Details
Session
Free Paper Podium(16): Andrology (A) & Novel Advance (A)
Date
Aug. 16 (Sat.)
Time
13:30 - 13:36
Presentation Order
1