Only few reports addressed the outcome of patients submitted to anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) with an indwelling inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). To assess the feasibility and safety of RRP in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and a previously implanted with an IPP. We evaluated the surgical parameters and the follow-up functional results in this particular patient population. Four patients previously submitted to IPP implant for severe erectile dysfunction underwent RRP for organ-confined prostate cancer. Patients' charts were carefully reviewed to investigate pre- and perioperative details. Patients were evaluated by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. Patients were then contacted to assess long-term functional and oncological outcome. The outcome of the procedures was comparable to a normal population in terms of operating time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization time, and pathological outcome. No injury to the preexisting penile implant was reported. Continence was obtained in 3 (75%) patients at catheter removal, and in 1 (25%) patient at the 1-month follow-up. No major intra- and postoperative complications were reported. All patients were able to use their prosthesis after RRP. No statistical difference in pre- and post-RRP EF domain scores was found. The presence of an IPP in patients with prostate cancer is not a contraindication to perform an anatomical RRP. Surgery can be performed safely without injuring the implant and the clinical outcome in these patients is satisfactory. Postoperative implant use is not affected by RRP. Deho' F, Salonia A, Briganti A, Zanni G, Gallina A, Rokkas K, Guazzoni G, Rigatti P, and Montorsi F. Anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients with a preexisting three-piece inflatable prosthesis: A series of case reports. J Sex Med 2009;6:578-583.
Only few reports addressed the outcome of patients submitted to anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) with an indwelling inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). To assess the feasibility and safety of RRP in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and a previously implanted with an IPP. We evaluated the surgical parameters and the follow-up functional results in this particular patient population. Four patients previously submitted to IPP implant for severe erectile dysfunction underwent RRP for organ-confined prostate cancer. Patients' charts were carefully reviewed to investigate pre- and perioperative details. Patients were evaluated by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. Patients were then contacted to assess long-term functional and oncological outcome. The outcome of the procedures was comparable to a normal population in terms of operating time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization time, and pathological outcome. No injury to the preexisting penile implant was reported. Continence was obtained in 3 (75%) patients at catheter removal, and in 1 (25%) patient at the 1-month follow-up. No major intra- and postoperative complications were reported. All patients were able to use their prosthesis after RRP. No statistical difference in pre- and post-RRP EF domain scores was found. The presence of an IPP in patients with prostate cancer is not a contraindication to perform an anatomical RRP. Surgery can be performed safely without injuring the implant and the clinical outcome in these patients is satisfactory. Postoperative implant use is not affected by RRP. Deho' F, Salonia A, Briganti A, Zanni G, Gallina A, Rokkas K, Guazzoni G, Rigatti P, and Montorsi F. Anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients with a preexisting three-piece inflatable prosthesis: A series of case reports. J Sex Med 2009;6:578-583.
Anatomical Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy in Patients with a Preexisting Three-Piece Inflatable Prosthesis: A Series of Case Reports
SALONIA , ANDREA;BRIGANTI , ALBERTO;MONTORSI , FRANCESCO
2009-01-01
Abstract
Only few reports addressed the outcome of patients submitted to anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) with an indwelling inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). To assess the feasibility and safety of RRP in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and a previously implanted with an IPP. We evaluated the surgical parameters and the follow-up functional results in this particular patient population. Four patients previously submitted to IPP implant for severe erectile dysfunction underwent RRP for organ-confined prostate cancer. Patients' charts were carefully reviewed to investigate pre- and perioperative details. Patients were evaluated by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. Patients were then contacted to assess long-term functional and oncological outcome. The outcome of the procedures was comparable to a normal population in terms of operating time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization time, and pathological outcome. No injury to the preexisting penile implant was reported. Continence was obtained in 3 (75%) patients at catheter removal, and in 1 (25%) patient at the 1-month follow-up. No major intra- and postoperative complications were reported. All patients were able to use their prosthesis after RRP. No statistical difference in pre- and post-RRP EF domain scores was found. The presence of an IPP in patients with prostate cancer is not a contraindication to perform an anatomical RRP. Surgery can be performed safely without injuring the implant and the clinical outcome in these patients is satisfactory. Postoperative implant use is not affected by RRP. Deho' F, Salonia A, Briganti A, Zanni G, Gallina A, Rokkas K, Guazzoni G, Rigatti P, and Montorsi F. Anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients with a preexisting three-piece inflatable prosthesis: A series of case reports. J Sex Med 2009;6:578-583.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
