==inizio objective==
Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation represents a well-stablished treatment for medically refractory erectile dysfunction (ED) (1). Despite the clear evidences of the high incidence of the burden of ED after radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP), this issue is rarely addressed in the scientific literature.
The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of a multicentric series of patients underwent a PP implantation following RCP.
==fine objective==
==inizio methodsresults==
A multicentric database, involving 4 tertiary referral centers, was created. From December 2004 to September 2017 65 patients underwent a PP implantation for a medically refractory ED following a RCP for a muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Clinical records were retrospectively reviewed. 47 patients, presenting comprehensive intraoperative and postoperative information were enrolled in the study. Patients were confined in 2 main groups according to the urinary diversion: neobladder (A) or other diversions (B), including ileal conduit and ureterocutaneostomy. The intraoperative complications, the hospital stay, a postoperative haematoma scale and the postoperative complications were selected as variables for the surgical outcomes.
==fine methodsresults==
==inizio results==
14 patients (29.8%) were enrolled in group A, whereas the remainders were in group B. Only a minority of cases (8.5%) of RCP were carried out with minimally invasive techniques (robotic or laparoscopic). A chemotherapy in adjuvant settings was frequently reported, particularly in group B. Patients in group A resulted sharply younger than in group B (p=0.0001). Penile shaft deformities, either curvature or severe shortening, turned up to be rare issue, reported in only 15% of cases.
Despite the overall young age of patients, a vast minority of them was referred preoperatively to a sexual counselor. On the other hand, a consistent percentage (65.9%) of patients were referred to an early postoperative sexual counseling, with a median time of 12 months after surgery. Most of the patients (65.9%) started pde-5 inhibitors as a first line treatment and less than half of the them (44.7%) used, in salvage settings, intracavernous injections (ICI).
Surgical outcomes are listed in Table 1. The time elapsed between the RCP and the PP implant was extremely long, with a median of 38 months. Nevertheless, the median implant length resulted to be satisfactory (19 cm) and the need of a reduced diameter cylinder (CXR) was a rare event. Despite the previous pelvic surgery, most of the PP implanted were three-pieces. The spherical reservoir was the most used, compared to the low-profile (Conceal) (2). In most of the cases a safe placement of the reservoir in the extraperitoneal space through a second abdominal incision was the preferred surgeon’s choice. However, the ectopic high-submuscolar placement was found in up to 30% of cases in group A. Both intraoperative and postoperative complications resulted to be rare events (3). Finally, the multivariate statistical analysis (logistic regression) did not show any independent predictive risk factor for postoperative complications.
==fine results==
==inizio discussions==
From our analysis resulted that a small percentage of patients was referred to a pre-cistectomy psychosexual counselling while an important percentage of patients was referred to an early postoperative sexual counseling. This demonstrates how patients do not care about the sexual problem at the time of diagnosis of cancer, while approximately one year after the radical cystectomy they started a sexual counseling. Although traditional placement of reservoir into the space of Retzius is widely utilized and have been safely employed in complex cases, potential complications are described, including bladder perforation or erosion and vascular damages. However our multicentric analysis shows that the high submuscular alternative placement strategy was considered only in a small number of departments as a viable alternative to the traditional placement of reservoir. A low rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications was reported without no well-defined risk factors as predictor of complications. Maybe the big surgical experience of the centers enrolled in this study helped to reach this good results.
==fine discussions==
==inizio conclusion==
Despite the high incidence of cases, ED after RCP is rarely addressed by urologists. PP implantation, despite the type of urinary diversion, represents a safe and satisfactory solution to address this issue.
==fine conclusion==
==inizio reference==
1-Pescatori E, Alei G, Antonini G, Avolio A, Bettocchi C, Bitelli M, Boezio F, Cai T, Caraceni E, Carrino M, Colombo F, Conti E, Corvasce A, Dehò F, Fiordelise S, Ghidini N, Italiano E, La Pera G, Liguori G, Maretti C, Mondaini N, Natali A, Negro C, Palmieri A, Palumbo F, Paradiso M, Polito M, Pozza D, Silvani M, Tamai A, Timpano M, Utizi L, Varvello F, Vicini P, Vitarelli A, Franco G. INSIST-ED: Italian Society of Andrology registry on penile prosthesis surgery. First data analysis.Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016 Jul 4;88(2):122-7.
2- M. Carrino, L.Pucci, F.Chiancone, R.Riccio, C.Meccariello, P.Fedelini. Heterotopic placement of prosthesis reservoir in penile prosthetic surgery: exception or rule. 22° Congresso nazionale Auro.it 24/26 maggio 2015.
3- Zafer Kozacioglu, Bulent Gunlusoy, Tansu Degirmenci, Suleyman Minareci, Yasin Ceylan, Tarik Yonguc. Perioperative and Postoperative Classification of Surgical Complications of Penile Prosthesis Surgery. Journal of universal surgery. 2012 Vol. 1 No. 3:1.
==fine reference==