EFFECT OF RADIOTHERAPY ON INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHETIC COMPLICATION AND REOPERATION RATES

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Surgical Therapy I1 Apr 2018PD18-04 EFFECT OF RADIOTHERAPY ON INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHETIC COMPLICATION AND REOPERATION RATES Ron Golan, Tianyi Sun, Adrien Bernstein, Jim Hu, Art Sedrakyan, and James Kashanian Ron GolanRon Golan More articles by this author , Tianyi SunTianyi Sun More articles by this author , Adrien BernsteinAdrien Bernstein More articles by this author , Jim HuJim Hu More articles by this author , Art SedrakyanArt Sedrakyan More articles by this author , and James KashanianJames Kashanian More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.981AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Radiation therapy (RT) has been demonstrated to affect the integrity of surrounding skin and soft tissues, and may impair wound healing. Men with erectile dysfunction who have received RT for prostate cancer (PCa) may elect to undergo inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) insertion, though the effect of RT on the complication and reoperation rates of inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) has yet to be demonstrated in a contemporary cohort. We set out to compare complication and reoperation rates in men with PCa who underwent IPP insertion following either radical prostatectomy (RP) or RT. METHODS The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Database was queried for men with PCa who underwent either RT (n=83,277) or RP (n=32,608) and subsequently an IPP insertion from 2002 to 2013. Diagnoses and procedures were identified using International Classification of Diseases- 9th edition (ICD-9) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Men who had undergone both RT and RP were excluded. The primary outcome was reoperation, as defined by the first procedure [removal, revision or replacement] following IPP insertion. RESULTS We identified 350 men who received an IPP following RT and 653 receiving an IPP following RP. Median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range [IQR] 30-81) for RT and 59 months (IQR 30-91) for RP. Men who underwent RT were generally older (p<0.01), more likely to receive androgen-deprivation therapy (p<0.01), and more likely to have multiple comorbidities (p<0.01). Kaplan-Meier estimates for the likelihood of revision, replacement or removal are shown in Figure 1. There were no differences in IPP revision, replacement/removal, or overall re-operation rates at 90 days, 1 year, or 3 years. Among men who had received RT, no relationship was observed between the time from RT to IPP and the likelihood of a reoperation. CONCLUSIONS Radiation therapy for PCa does not influence the complication and reoperation rates following insertion of IPPs, despite the potential effect of RT on surrounding tissue as well as the older age and more comorbidities associated with receiving RT. © 2018FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4SApril 2018Page: e391 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018MetricsAuthor Information Ron Golan More articles by this author Tianyi Sun More articles by this author Adrien Bernstein More articles by this author Jim Hu More articles by this author Art Sedrakyan More articles by this author James Kashanian More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...