Evidence Hub

(147) Multicenter Evaluation of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement in Men with a History of Priapism

D. Barham, M. Hammad, D. Swerdloff, K. Gross, G. Hatzichristodoulou, J. Jones, J. Hotaling, I. Pearce et al.

Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2023

31 participants

Abstract

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) can be used in both acute and delayed management of priapism-induced erectile dysfunction. Prolonged priapism may result in corporal fibrosis that makes IPP placement more difficult. The current literature on IPP placement in men with a history of priapism is limited to small series and often single-center experiences.

We sought to evaluate a multicenter experience of IPP placement in men with a history of priapism.

We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with a history of priapism undergoing IPP placement by 7 highly experienced implant surgeons. Malleable prosthesis placement patients were excluded. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were collected. Descriptive statistics were performed using mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, whereas frequencies and percentages were used for categorical variables. We evaluated differences in complication rates in those undergoing early or delayed IPP placement. We defined early placement as ≤4 months from priapism to IPP.

31 patients underwent IPP placement at a mean of 97.4 ± 26.7 months following ischemic priapism. The mean duration of priapism was 52.3 ± 21.2 hours. The mean age of the cohort was 52.4 ± 4.2 years with a mean follow-up of 11.6 ± 1.3 mo. Overall, 25 patients (48.3%) had a prior shunt for priapism and 6 (19.4%) had penoscrotal decompression. Four patients (12.9%) underwent early placement and 27 (87.1%) delayed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 31 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free