Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the long-term outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution.


METHODS
Patients who had penile prosthesis surgery from 1988 to 1999 at a private teaching hospital and the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center were identified and charts abstracted for age at first prosthesis, ethnicity, etiology of impotence, comorbid medical disease, previous treatments, surgeon, type of prosthesis, perioperative complications, social history, and outcome. Patient outcomes were determined either from recent clinical documentation within the prior year or by telephone survey of patients. Frequent implanters were defined as those surgeons who performed more than 10 procedures during the study period. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate survival for patients and prostheses; statistical significance was assessed by the log-rank test.


RESULTS
A total of 152 patients were identified, 81 patients at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and 71 patients at the private hospital. A total of 180 procedures were performed by 15 attending surgeons, 4 of whom performed most (n = 132) of these procedures. No statistically significant difference was noted in patient age between the two hospitals. No statistically significant differences were found in survival of the penile prostheses on the basis of a history of smoking, diabetes, hypertension, or coronary artery disease. First prostheses had statistically significant better survival compared with secondary prostheses (5-year rate 71% versus 42%; 10-year rate 60% versus 35%, P = 0.0002). The overall infection rate at final follow-up was 9.9% and 18.8% for primary and secondary prostheses, respectively (P = 0.03). The 5-year survival outcomes with first prostheses for frequent implanters were superior to those of infrequent implanters (70% versus 63%, P = 0.034). Malleable prostheses had fewer complications than three-piece inflatable prostheses (10-year survival rate 87% versus 50%, P = 0.0081).


CONCLUSIONS
Superior penile prosthesis outcomes were achieved with first penile prostheses when implanted by higher volume implanters. Meticulous technique and experience are important in all penile prosthesis surgery; however, outcome analysis emphasizes that the differences in outcomes are most apparent with first prostheses, which represent the best opportunity for the patient to achieve good results.
Lotan
Yair
Y
Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75390-9110, USA.
Roehrborn
Claus G
CG
McConnell
John D
JD
Hendin
Benjamin N
BN
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002983:Clinical Competence; D015897:Comorbidity; D004868:Equipment Failure; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006784:Hospitals, Teaching / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006787:Hospitals, Veterans / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D015993:Life Tables; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D019935:Penile Implantation / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D016459:Prosthesis-Related Infections / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000209:etiology; D012086:Reoperation; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013781:Texas; D016896:Treatment Outcome