Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:Infection remains a prominent concern following penile implantation. Recognition of the risk factors for infection may help to guide surgeons toward reducing the risk of prosthetic contamination. AIM:To gain a further understanding of infectious adverse events following penile prosthesis, we performed a systematic literature review. METHODS:As part of the 2018 American Urological Association Erectile Dysfunction Clinical Guidelines and with the support of the American Urological Association, we performed a comprehensive review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to search for eligible articles published between January 1, 1965, and July 20, 2016, to identify articles reporting infectious adverse events following prosthesis placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:The main outcome measure was infectious adverse events following penile prosthesis placement. RESULTS:Ninety-one articles reporting infectious adverse events representing 97 study arms were identified. Prosthetic infection rates ranged from 0% to 24.6% across all series. Inflatable penile prostheses displayed a wider range (0-24.6%) than malleable devices (0-9.1%); the most frequently reported infection rate for inflatable devices was 5% or less. With the advent of device coatings and improved surgical techniques, infectious adverse events have decreased. Infections among diabetic patients also decreased throughout the reviewed body of literature, with the most recent series reporting rates consistent with those of non-diabetic patients. Furthermore, no glycosylated hemoglobin cutoff was found to infer increased or decreased risk of prosthesis infection. CONCLUSION:Overall penile prosthetic infectious adverse events have decreased as surgical techniques have improved and the use of antimicrobial coating has gained in popularity. These advances have demonstrated significant benefits for all patients, particularly diabetic patients who experience infection rates similar to those of non-diabetic patients in recent reports. Further technological advancements for the prevention of biofilm formation is warranted. Mahon J, Dornbier R, Wegrzyn G, et al. Infectious Adverse Events Following the Placement of a Penile Prosthesis: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:348-354.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Inadequate treatment of men with erectile dysfunction (ED) subjects them and their partners to lost quality of life, yet little is known about the cause and duration of symptoms that lead to penile prosthesis (PP) placement. AIM/OBJECTIVE:We performed a systematic review addressing cause and duration of symptoms before implantation. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for articles published between January 1, 1965-July 20, 2016, reporting on PP for ED. Studies were assessed for quality. Body of evidence strength was categorized in accordance to American Urological Association (AUA) categorization: grade A (well-conducted, highly-generalizable randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or exceptionally strong observational studies with consistent findings), grade B (RCTs with some weaknesses of procedure/generalizability or moderately strong observational studies with consistent findings), or grade C (RCTs with serious deficiencies of procedure/generalizability, have small sample sizes, or other problems that potentially confound interpretation). This review was performed as part of the 2018 AUA ED Clinical Guidelines, with the support of the AUA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Cause and duration of symptoms before PP were assessed. RESULTS:We reviewed 113 articles constituting 150 study arms. All studies were observational (body of evidence strength grade C). Of these arms, only 19 reported on ED duration. Mean duration was 56 months for men undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement (38.7 months for those after prostatectomy) and 72 months for those undergoing malleable penile prosthesis placement. Diabetic patients undergoing IPP had mean ED duration of 75 months. Among arms reporting on IPPs, causes of ED were vascular disease (47 arms; range 2.9-62.0%; mean 31.9%), diabetes (61 arms; range 12.8-77.8%; mean 28.3%), and pelvic surgery or trauma (49 arms; range 0.5-49.7%; mean 20.3%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Nearly all men undergoing PP have ED of organic causes, whereas diabetic patients and patients receiving malleable penile prosthesis have the longest ED duration. Factors driving this relative delay require additional investigation. Post-prostatectomy IPP placement is offered relatively late, on average. Bajic P, Mahon J, Faraday M, et al. Etiology of Erectile Dysfunction and Duration of Symptoms in Patients Undergoing Penile Prosthesis: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:333-337.

BACKGROUND:Prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, urology was one of the specialties with the lowest rates of telemedicine and videoconferencing use. Common barriers to the implementation of telemedicine included a lack of technological literacy, concerns with reimbursement, and resistance to changes in the workplace. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020, the delivery of urological services globally has quickly shifted to telemedicine to account for the mass clinical, procedural, and operative cancellations, inadequate personal protective equipment, and shortage of personnel. OBJECTIVE:To investigate current telemedicine usage by urologists, urologist perceptions on the necessity of in-person clinic appointments, the usability of telemedicine, and the current barriers to its implementation. METHODS:We performed a global, cross-sectional web-based survey to investigate the use of telemedicine before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists' perceived usability of telemedicine was assessed using a modified Delphi approach to create questions based on a modified version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). For the purposes of this study, telemedicine was defined as video calls only. RESULTS:A total of 620 urologists from 58 different countries and 6 continents participated in the survey. Prior to COVID-19, 15.8% of urologists surveyed were using telemedicine in their clinical practices; during the pandemic, that proportion increased to 46.1%. Of the urologists without telemedicine experience, interest in usage of telemedicine increased from 43.7 to 80.8% during COVID-19. Among urologists that used telemedicine during the pandemic, 80.9% were interested in continuing to use it in their practice. The three most commonly used platforms were Zoom, Doxy.me, and Epic and the top three barriers to implementing telemedicine were patient lack of technological comprehension, patient lack of access to required technology, and reimbursement concerns. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study to quantify the use, usability, and pervading interest in telemedicine amongst urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the face of this pandemic, urologists' usage of telemedicine nearly tripled, demonstrating their ability to adopt and adapt telemedicine into their practices, but barriers involving the technology itself are still preventing many from utilizing it despite increasing interest.

Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH, Xiaflex, Xiapex) is the only FDA-approved medication for treatment of Peyronie's disease. It is unclear how practitioners actually use CCH in their own practices. The objectives of the study were: (1) to identify variability in practice patterns for CCH among practitioners, (2) to assess adherence to the package insert instructions, and (3) to evaluate whether provider satisfaction was associated with adherence to instructions. A 30-question online survey was distributed to 1270 members of the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) from the EU, USA, Canada and Australia. Of the 30 questions, 10 survey questions had only one response consistent with the CCH package insert recommendations. An "adherence" score was calculated for each survey participant depending on how many of these questions were answered correctly. The average adherence scores of various groups were compared using a student's t-test. A chi-squared test was used to determine association between categorical variables. Of 202 total responses, 132 practitioners reported using CCH out of 1270 ISSM members from countries where CCH is available (10.4% response rate). Practitioners from outside the USA were more likely to be satisfied with CCH (p = 0.006), and more experienced users (>20 uses) were more likely to be satisfied than less experienced users (<10 uses) (p = 0.046). Satisfied users of CCH did not have significantly different adherence scores than non-satisfied users. Even though 67% of practitioners believed they followed the package insert guidelines, only 11% adhered to all the recommendations evaluated by the survey. Treatment adherence to package insert guidelines does not appear to be associated with provider satisfaction. We believe there is utility in seeing a snapshot of these practice patterns so practitioners may feel more comfortable adapting their own practice in light of newer data supporting alternative administration methods.