Survey on the Contemporary Management of Intraoperative Urethral Injuries During Penile Prosthesis Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative urethral injury is an uncommon event during the placement of a penile prosthesis, and alternative management strategies have been proposed with continuation of implantation after urethral injury. AIM: To evaluate surgeon practices in the management of intraoperative urethral injury. METHODS: An online survey was sent to the society listservs of the Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgeons (GURS) and the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA). Physicians were queried on their fellowship training, experience with penile prosthesis implantation, and management of urethral injuries during prosthesis placement. The response data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). The χ2 test and Fisher exact test were used to determine associations between variables. OUTCOMES: Survey responses. RESULTS: 131 survey responses were analyzed. Of the responders, 41.2% were GURS fellowship trained, 19.1% were SMSNA trained, 30.5% were non-fellowship trained, and 9.2% were trained in other fellowships. 25.4% of participants performed more than 50 implantations per year, 37.7% performed 20 to 50 per year, and 36.9% performed fewer than 20 per year. Urethral injury during prosthesis implantation was uncommon, with 26.2% reporting 0 injury, 58.5% reporting 1 to 3 injuries, and 15.4% reporting more than 3 career injuries. Injuries were most commonly encountered during corporal dilation (71.1%) compared with corporal exposure (12.5%) or penile straightening maneuvers (7.0%). There was no statistically significant difference with aborting or continuing implantation among GURS-trained, SMSNA-trained, other fellowship-trained, and non-fellowship-trained surgeons. Of all responders, 55% would abort the procedure after distal urethral injury, whereas 45% would continue the procedure with unilateral or bilateral insertion of cylinders. Patient factors that increased likelihood of terminating the procedure in the case of urethral injury included immunosuppression, spinal cord injury, and clean intermittent catheterization dependence. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A urethral injury during penile prosthesis implantation might not mandate termination of the procedure despite classic teaching. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The strength of this study is that it provides difficult to obtain epidemiologic data on the frequency and management of this clinically significant injury. Limitations include the inherent biases from a survey-based study including response bias and recall bias. The survey response rate could not be obtained. CONCLUSION: Urethral injury during penile prosthesis implantation is a rare but clinically significant risk of the procedure, with many variations in management of the injury. Termination and delayed implantation might not be necessary after injury, although long-term outcome data are difficult to obtain. Sexton SJ, Granieri MA, Lentz AC. Survey on the Contemporary Management of Intraoperative Urethral Injuries During Penile Prosthesis Implantation. J Sex Med 2018;15:576-581.

Duke Scholars

Author Aaron Claude Lentz Urology