Extended Experience with High Submuscular Placement of Urological Prosthetic Balloons and Reservoirs: Refined Technique for Optimal Outcomes

T. J. Pagliara, B. R. Viers, J. Scott, A. F. Morey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Since 2012, we have routinely placed urological prosthetic balloons and reservoirs in a high submuscular location between the transversalis fascia and rectus abdominis muscle during inflatable penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter surgery. We review our experience of more than 600 high submuscular cases, describe refinements in our technique through time and compare outcomes to prior consecutive space of Retzius prosthetic cases. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent inflatable penile prosthesis and/or artificial urinary sphincter placement between January 2009 and April 2016. Complications and need for surgical revision were recorded and compared between the 2 placement locations. Results: During the study period 872 prosthetic cases were performed, including 619 high submuscular cases from 2012 to 2016 (inflatable penile prosthesis in 344, artificial urinary sphincter in 275). Of 399 first-time high submuscular implants 54 (14%) required revision, of which 8 (2%) were attributable to the urological balloon or reservoir due to “pain/bother” (4) or herniation (4). Of the 161 space of Retzius urological balloons and reservoirs placed from 2009 to 2011 a similar rate of herniation (3 cases, 1.9%) was noted, although higher rates of deep pelvic complications (3, 1.9%) were noted compared to high submuscular cases (2, 0.5%; p=0.14). Since implementing our refined high submuscular technique, no deep pelvic complications have occurred. Conclusions: Experience with high submuscular placement of urological balloons and reservoirs confirms that it is safe and well tolerated. With refinements in technique the complication rates are similar in frequency to those with space of Retzius but appear to be minor in nature with negligible risk of visceral or vascular injury.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)293-298
Number of pages6
JournalUrology Practice
Volume5
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Fingerprint

Artificial Urinary Sphincter
Penile Prosthesis
Rectus Abdominis
Vascular System Injuries
Fascia
Reoperation
Pain
Muscles

Keywords

  • artificial
  • penile prosthesis
  • urinary sphincter

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Extended Experience with High Submuscular Placement of Urological Prosthetic Balloons and Reservoirs : Refined Technique for Optimal Outcomes. / Pagliara, T. J.; Viers, B. R.; Scott, J.; Morey, A. F.

In: Urology Practice, Vol. 5, No. 4, 01.07.2018, p. 293-298.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d9e512daf0394bf384282c8783a3348a,
title = "Extended Experience with High Submuscular Placement of Urological Prosthetic Balloons and Reservoirs: Refined Technique for Optimal Outcomes",
abstract = "Introduction: Since 2012, we have routinely placed urological prosthetic balloons and reservoirs in a high submuscular location between the transversalis fascia and rectus abdominis muscle during inflatable penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter surgery. We review our experience of more than 600 high submuscular cases, describe refinements in our technique through time and compare outcomes to prior consecutive space of Retzius prosthetic cases. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent inflatable penile prosthesis and/or artificial urinary sphincter placement between January 2009 and April 2016. Complications and need for surgical revision were recorded and compared between the 2 placement locations. Results: During the study period 872 prosthetic cases were performed, including 619 high submuscular cases from 2012 to 2016 (inflatable penile prosthesis in 344, artificial urinary sphincter in 275). Of 399 first-time high submuscular implants 54 (14{\%}) required revision, of which 8 (2{\%}) were attributable to the urological balloon or reservoir due to “pain/bother” (4) or herniation (4). Of the 161 space of Retzius urological balloons and reservoirs placed from 2009 to 2011 a similar rate of herniation (3 cases, 1.9{\%}) was noted, although higher rates of deep pelvic complications (3, 1.9{\%}) were noted compared to high submuscular cases (2, 0.5{\%}; p=0.14). Since implementing our refined high submuscular technique, no deep pelvic complications have occurred. Conclusions: Experience with high submuscular placement of urological balloons and reservoirs confirms that it is safe and well tolerated. With refinements in technique the complication rates are similar in frequency to those with space of Retzius but appear to be minor in nature with negligible risk of visceral or vascular injury.",
keywords = "artificial, penile prosthesis, urinary sphincter",
author = "Pagliara, {T. J.} and Viers, {B. R.} and J. Scott and Morey, {A. F.}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urpr.2017.06.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "293--298",
journal = "Urology Practice",
issn = "2352-0779",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extended Experience with High Submuscular Placement of Urological Prosthetic Balloons and Reservoirs

T2 - Refined Technique for Optimal Outcomes

AU - Pagliara, T. J.

AU - Viers, B. R.

AU - Scott, J.

AU - Morey, A. F.

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Introduction: Since 2012, we have routinely placed urological prosthetic balloons and reservoirs in a high submuscular location between the transversalis fascia and rectus abdominis muscle during inflatable penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter surgery. We review our experience of more than 600 high submuscular cases, describe refinements in our technique through time and compare outcomes to prior consecutive space of Retzius prosthetic cases. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent inflatable penile prosthesis and/or artificial urinary sphincter placement between January 2009 and April 2016. Complications and need for surgical revision were recorded and compared between the 2 placement locations. Results: During the study period 872 prosthetic cases were performed, including 619 high submuscular cases from 2012 to 2016 (inflatable penile prosthesis in 344, artificial urinary sphincter in 275). Of 399 first-time high submuscular implants 54 (14%) required revision, of which 8 (2%) were attributable to the urological balloon or reservoir due to “pain/bother” (4) or herniation (4). Of the 161 space of Retzius urological balloons and reservoirs placed from 2009 to 2011 a similar rate of herniation (3 cases, 1.9%) was noted, although higher rates of deep pelvic complications (3, 1.9%) were noted compared to high submuscular cases (2, 0.5%; p=0.14). Since implementing our refined high submuscular technique, no deep pelvic complications have occurred. Conclusions: Experience with high submuscular placement of urological balloons and reservoirs confirms that it is safe and well tolerated. With refinements in technique the complication rates are similar in frequency to those with space of Retzius but appear to be minor in nature with negligible risk of visceral or vascular injury.

AB - Introduction: Since 2012, we have routinely placed urological prosthetic balloons and reservoirs in a high submuscular location between the transversalis fascia and rectus abdominis muscle during inflatable penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter surgery. We review our experience of more than 600 high submuscular cases, describe refinements in our technique through time and compare outcomes to prior consecutive space of Retzius prosthetic cases. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent inflatable penile prosthesis and/or artificial urinary sphincter placement between January 2009 and April 2016. Complications and need for surgical revision were recorded and compared between the 2 placement locations. Results: During the study period 872 prosthetic cases were performed, including 619 high submuscular cases from 2012 to 2016 (inflatable penile prosthesis in 344, artificial urinary sphincter in 275). Of 399 first-time high submuscular implants 54 (14%) required revision, of which 8 (2%) were attributable to the urological balloon or reservoir due to “pain/bother” (4) or herniation (4). Of the 161 space of Retzius urological balloons and reservoirs placed from 2009 to 2011 a similar rate of herniation (3 cases, 1.9%) was noted, although higher rates of deep pelvic complications (3, 1.9%) were noted compared to high submuscular cases (2, 0.5%; p=0.14). Since implementing our refined high submuscular technique, no deep pelvic complications have occurred. Conclusions: Experience with high submuscular placement of urological balloons and reservoirs confirms that it is safe and well tolerated. With refinements in technique the complication rates are similar in frequency to those with space of Retzius but appear to be minor in nature with negligible risk of visceral or vascular injury.

KW - artificial

KW - penile prosthesis

KW - urinary sphincter

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045393028&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045393028&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urpr.2017.06.006

DO - 10.1016/j.urpr.2017.06.006

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85045393028

VL - 5

SP - 293

EP - 298

JO - Urology Practice

JF - Urology Practice

SN - 2352-0779

IS - 4

ER -