Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in the Ambulatory Surgical Setting: Outcomes From a Large Urological Group Practice.

Autor:	Weinberg AC; Chesapeake Urology Associates, Baltimore MD, USA., Siegelbaum MH; Chesapeake Urology Associates, Baltimore MD, USA., Lerner BD; Chesapeake Urology Associates, Baltimore MD, USA., Schwartz BC; Division of General Internal Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada., Segal RL; Chesapeake Urology Associates, Baltimore MD, USA. Electronic address: rsegal@chesuro.com.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The journal of sexual medicine [J Sex Med] 2020 May; Vol. 17 (5), pp. 1025-1032. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Mar 18.
DOI:	10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.02.015
Abstrakt:	Background: The definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction is the surgical implantation of a penile prosthesis, of which the most common type is the 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device. IPP surgery in outpatient freestanding ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) is becoming more prevalent as payers and health systems alike look to reduce healthcare costs. Aim: To evaluate IPP surgical outcomes in an ASC as compared to contemporaneously-performed hospital surgeries. Methods: A database of all patients undergoing IPP implantation by practitioners in the largest private community urology group practice in the United States, from January 1, 2013 to August 1, 2019, was prospectively compiled and retrospectively reviewed. Cohorts of patients having IPP implantation performed in the hospital vs ASC setting were compared. Main Outcome Measure: The primary outcome measure was to compare surgical data (procedural and surgical times, need for hospital transfer from ASC) and outcomes (risk for device infection, erosion, and need for surgical revision) between ASC and hospital-based surgery groups. Results: A total of 923 patients were included for this analysis, with 674 (73%) having ASC-based surgery and 249 (27%) hospital-based, by a total of 33 surgeons. Median procedural (99.5 vs 120 minutes, P < .001) and surgical (68 vs 75 minutes, P < .001) times were significantly shorter in the ASC. While the risk for device erosion and need for surgical revision were similar between groups, there was no higher risk for prosthetic infection when surgery was performed in the ASC (1.7% vs 4.4% [hospital], P = .02), corroborated by logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 0.39, P = .03). The risk for postoperative transfer of an ASC patient to the hospital was low (0.45%). The primary reason for mandated hospital-based surgery was medical (51.4%), though requirement as a result of insurance directive (39.7%) was substantial. Clinical Implications: IPP implantation in the ASC is safe, has similar outcomes compared to hospital-based surgery with a low risk for need for subsequent hospital transfer. Strengths & Limitations: The strengths of this study include the large patient population in this analysis as well as the real-world nature of our practice. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the review as well as the potential for residual confounding. Conclusion: ASC-based IPP implantation is safe, with shorter surgical and procedural times compared to those cases performed in the hospital setting, with similar functional outcomes. These data suggest no added benefit to hospital-based surgery in terms of prosthetic infection risk. Weinberg AC, Siegelbaum MH, Lerner BD, et al. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in the Ambulatory Surgical Setting: Outcomes From a Large Urological Group Practice. J Sex Med 2020;17:1025-1032. (Copyright © 2020 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu