Advertisement

Radiographic Assessment of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Location Variability in Contemporary Practice

Published:November 06, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.09.015

      ABSTRACT

      Background

      Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs are typically placed into the Space of Retzius (SOR) or alternative locations including the High Submuscular (HSM) space via transinguinal (TI) or counter incision (CI) techniques. A cadaver study showed variability in reservoir location after TI-HSM placement.

      Aim

      To evaluate reservoir location using cross-sectional imaging following IPP insertion.

      Methods

      We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database and identified men who underwent virgin penoscrotal IPP insertion between 2007 and 2019. We then identified those men who subsequently underwent cross-sectional imaging prior to October 2019. Radiologists evaluated cross-sectional imaging in a blinded manner and categorized reservoir locations as follows: 1) submuscular; 2) posterior to the external oblique fascia and lateral to the rectus abdominis musculature; 3) preperitoneal; 4) retroperitoneal; 5) intraperitoneal; 6) inguinal canal; 7) subcutaneous. Patients were stratified by reservoir placement technique, transinguinal space of Retzius (TI-SOR), transinguinal high submuscular (TI-HSM), or counterincision high submuscular (CI-HSM). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were reviewed and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests.

      Outcomes

      Variability exists in the TI placement of SOR and HSM reservoirs, CI-HSM reservoirs were associated with a low level of variability.

      Results

      Among 561 men who underwent virgin IPP insertion during the 12-year study period, 114 had postoperative cross-sectional imaging (29 TI-SOR, 80 TI-HSM, and 5 CI-HSM). Among the 114 patients imaged, TI-HSM reservoirs were more likely than TI-SOR to be located anterior to the transversalis fascia (48 vs 14%, P < .01) and were less likely to be located in the preperitoneal space (18 vs 62%, P < .01). Rates of intraperitoneal reservoir location were similar between the TI-HSM and TI-SOR groups (5 vs 7%, P = .66). Among imaged CI-HSM reservoirs, 4 (80%) were anterior to the transversalis fascia and 1 (20%) was within the inguinal canal. Among all 536 transinguinal cases (131 TI-SOR and 405 TI-HSM), rates of reservoir-related complications requiring operative intervention were similar between groups (5 vs 2%, P = .24). No complications were noted among the 25 patients in the CI-HSM cohort.

      Clinical Implications

      The level of variability seen in this study did not seem to impact patient safety, complications were rare in all cohorts.

      Strengths and Limitations

      This study is the first and largest of its kind in evaluating reservoir positioning in live patients with long-term follow-up. This study is limited in its retrospective and nonrandomized nature.

      Conclusions

      Despite variability with both TI-HSM and TI-SOR techniques, reservoir related complications remain rare.
      Kavoussi M, Cook G, Nordeck S, et al. Radiographic Assessment of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Location Variability in Contemporary Practice. J Sex Med 2021;18:2039–2044.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ISSM Member Login
      Login with your ISSM username and password.
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Purchase one-time access:

      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Morey AF
        • Cefalu CA
        • Hudak SJ.
        High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs via transscrotal approach.
        J Sex Med. 2013; 10: 603-610
        • Madiraju SK
        • Hakky TS
        • Perito PE
        • et al.
        Placement of inflatable penile implants in patients with prior radical pelvic surgery: a literature review.
        Sex Med Rev. 2019; 7: 189-197
        • Perito P
        • Wilson S.
        The history of nontraditional or ectopic placement of reservoirs in prosthetic urology.
        Sex Med Rev. 2016; 4: 190-193
        • Garber BB
        • Bickell M.
        Subcutaneous placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs.
        Urology. 2016; 88: 93-96
        • Loh-Doyle JC
        • Lin JS
        • Doumanian LR
        • et al.
        Outcomes of alternative reservoir placement in the lateral retroperitoneum during inflatable penile prosthesis placement.
        Urology. 2021;
        • Baumgarten AS
        • Kavoussi M
        • VanDyke ME
        • et al.
        Avoiding deep pelvic complications using a “Five-Step” technique for high submuscular placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs.
        BJU Int. 2020; 126: 457-463
        • Karpman E
        • Sadeghi-Nejad H
        • Henry G
        • et al.
        Current opinions on alternative reservoir placement for inflatable penile prosthesis among members of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America.
        J Sex Med. 2013; 10: 2115-2120
        • Garaffa G
        • Ralph DJ.
        Ectopic reservoir during inflatable penile implant surgery: is it now standard of care?.
        J Sex Med. 2017; 14: 316-317
        • Grimberg D
        • Wang S
        • Carlos E
        • et al.
        Counter incision is a safe and effective method for alternative reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis surgery.
        Transl Androl Urol. 2020; 9: 2688-2696
        • Ziegelmann MJ
        • Viers BR
        • Lomas DJ
        • et al.
        Ectopic penile prosthesis reservoir placement: an anatomic cadaver model of the high submuscular technique.
        J Sex Med. 2016; 13: 1425-1431
        • Hernandez JC
        • Trost L
        • Kohler T
        • et al.
        Emerging complications following alternative reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a 5-year multi-institutional experience.
        J Urol. 2019; 201: 581-586
        • Kavoussi M
        • Bhanvadia RR
        • VanDyke ME
        • et al.
        Explantation of high submuscular reservoirs: safety and practical considerations.
        J Sex Med. 2020; 17: 2488-2494
        • Pagliara TJ
        • Viers B.R.
        • Morey A.F.
        Extended experience with high submuscular placement of urological prosthetic balloons and reservoirs: refined technique for optimal outcomes.
        Urology Practice. 2018; 5: 293-298
        • Chung PH
        • Morey AF
        • Tausch TJ
        • et al.
        High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs: 2-year experience and patient-reported outcomes.
        Urology. 2014; 84: 1535-1540
        • Tausch TJ
        • Morey AF
        • Zhao LC
        • et al.
        High submuscular versus space of Retzius placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs: results of a surgeon survey.
        Can J Urol. 2014; 21: 7465-7469
        • Osmonov D
        • Chomicz A
        • Tropmann-Frick M
        • et al.
        High-submuscular vs. space of Retzius reservoir placement during implantation of inflatable penile implants.
        Int J Impot Res. 2020; 32: 18-23
        • Clavell-Hernandez J
        • Shah A
        • Wang R.
        Non-infectious reservoir-related complications during and after penile prosthesis placement.
        Sex Med Rev. 2019; 7: 521-529
        • Stember DS
        • Garber BB
        • Perito PE.
        Outcomes of abdominal wall reservoir placement in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a safe and efficacious alternative to the space of Retzius.
        J Sex Med. 2014; 11: 605-612
        • Karpman E
        • Brant WO
        • Kansas B
        • et al.
        Reservoir alternate surgical implantation technique: preliminary outcomes of initial PROPPER study of low profile or spherical reservoir implantation in submuscular location or traditional prevesical space.
        J Urol. 2015; 193: 239-244
        • Gross MS
        • Stember DS
        • Garber BB
        • et al.
        A retrospective analysis of risk factors for IPP reservoir entry into the peritoneum after abdominal wall placement.
        Int J Impot Res. 2017; 29: 215-218
      1. Khouri RK, Jr., Baumgarten AS, Ortiz NM, et al. Pressure regulating balloon herniation: a correctable cause of artificial urinary sphincter malfunction. Urology 2020;139:188-192.