Penile Prosthesis Placement by a Dedicated Transgender Surgery Unit: A Retrospective Analysis of Complications.

Autor:	Briles BL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA., Middleton RY; Long School of Medicine, UT Health San Antonio; San Antonio, TX, USA., Celtik KE; Department of Urology, Houston Methodist Hospital; Houston, TX, USA., Crane CN; Crane Center for Transgender Surgery; Austin, TX, USA., Safir M; Crane Center for Transgender Surgery; Austin, TX, USA., Santucci RA; Crane Center for Transgender Surgery; Austin, TX, USA. Electronic address: richard@cranects.com.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The journal of sexual medicine [J Sex Med] 2022 Apr; Vol. 19 (4), pp. 641-649. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Mar 01.
DOI:	10.1016/j.jsxm.2022.01.518
Abstrakt:	Background: Penile prostheses may be used as a component of genital gender affirmation surgery for the purpose of achieving penile rigidity after phalloplasty, and transgender individuals experience higher complication rates than cisgender individuals. Aim: To observe complications with transmasculine penile prosthesis surgery over time and across surgical conditions. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all transmasculine patients with phalloplasty undergoing penile prosthesis placement between 4/14/2017 and 2/11/2020 (80 patients). Outcomes: Independent variables include implant type, previous genital surgeries, and simultaneous genital surgeries. Dependent variables include prosthesis infection and mechanical complication (device malfunction, dislodgement, erosion). Results: There was an overall complication requiring surgery rate of 36% and infection rate of 20% (15/67 for inflatable prostheses and 1/13 for semirigid), with 14% (11/80) experiencing infection requiring removal. Differences in infection rates appeared insignificant across categories of previous surgery or with simultaneous surgery, but we did notice a markedly lower rate for semirigid prostheses compared to inflatable. There was a significant relationship between infection and case number, with the probability of infection decreasing over time. Device loss at 9 months was 21% overall. Preoperative conditions of the neophallus such as prior stricture correction and perioperative factors such as simultaneous clean and clean-contaminated procedures seemed to pose no additional increase in complication rates. Clinical Implications: Type and number of prior and simultaneous non-prosthetic surgeries should not be considered as a risk factor for penile prosthesis after phalloplasty for transmasculine patients, even those that are clean-contaminated STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Our cohort size is large compared to currently available studies, although not large enough to generate sufficient power for group comparisons. We have reported every genital surgical step between phalloplasty and penile prosthesis placement and recorded complications with subsequent devices after failure. Patient-reported outcomes were not collected. Conclusion: We demonstrate that preoperative conditions of the neophallus, such as prior stricture correction, and perioperative factors, such as simultaneous clean and clean-contaminated procedures, seem to pose no additional increase in complication rates. Our data suggest that surgical experience may further decrease complications over time. B. L. Briles, R. Y. Middleton, K. E. Celtik, et al. Penile Prosthesis Placement by a Dedicated Transgender Surgery Unit: A Retrospective Analysis of Complications. J Sex Med 2022;19:641-649. (Copyright © 2022 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu