Peyronie's disease compromises the durability and component-malfunction rates in patients implanted with an inflatable penile prosthesis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the durability and complication rates of surgery to implant an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) between patients with and without Peyronie's disease (PD).


METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing IPP surgery at one centre (Memphis) between July 1997 and May 2007. Variables included age at surgery, race, body mass index, presence of PD, brand/type of IPP (two vs three pieces), presence of diabetes mellitus (DM), active tobacco use, and complications. The result were assessed using t-tests, chi-square and regression analysis, with P < 0.05 considered to indicate significant differences.


RESULTS
In all, 79 men were analysed (mean age 59.8 years, range 38.1-81.5). Nine (11%) patients had PD and had a IPP implanted, with penile modelling. Overall, 43 (54%) patients had pre-existing DM and 51 (65%) actively used tobacco. At a mean (range) follow-up of 19.6 (0.1-115.3) months, six (8%) patients had component malfunctions. Of these, three had DM and four actively smoked. Of the nine patients with PD, three developed component malfunctions, vs three (4%) who did not have PD (P= 0.002). Both groups had similar infection rates (P= 0.98). The mean (range) time to component malfunction was 4.3 (0.1-9.6) months, which was longer (but not significantly) in the PD group, with a mean (median, range) of 10.9 (6.3, 1.1-9.6) months, than the 3.0 (1.0, 0.2-7.9) months in the group without PD (P= 0.4). Groups were matched for rates of DM (P= 0.1) and tobacco use (P= 0.2). PD was a significant predictor of component malfunction on both univariate (P= 0.001) and multivariate analysis (P= 0.002) when adjusting for age (P= 0.2), body mass index (P= 0.7), DM (P= 0.3) and tobacco use (P= 0.8).


CONCLUSIONS
Patients with PD implanted with a IPP, with penile modelling, had significantly higher component malfunction rates. Further, PD independently predicted component malfunction. These findings might be related to stress on the device at the time of surgery, during use, or both. Further study into this relationship is required.
DiBlasio
Christopher J
CJ
Department of Urology, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN, USA. christopher.diblasio@mountsinai.org
Kurta
Jordan M
JM
Botta
Sisir
S
Malcolm
John B
JB
Wan
Jim Y
JY
Derweesh
Ithaar H
IH
Aleman
Michael A
MA
Wake
Robert W
RW
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D004812:Epidemiologic Methods; D007172:Erectile Dysfunction / Q000209:etiology / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D019935:Penile Implantation / Q000379:methods*; D010411:Penile Induration / Q000150:complications / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D015917:Penile Prosthesis; D011475:Prosthesis Failure / Q000209:etiology*; D012907:Smoking / Q000009:adverse effects