Comparison of satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation in patients with prostate cancer radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy

Justin P Mehr; Kyle A Blum; Travis Green; Skyler Howell; Stephen Palasi; Andrew T Sullivan; Benjamin Kim; Christopher Kannady; Run Wang

doi:10.21037/tau-22-600

Comparison of satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation in patients with prostate cancer radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy

Transl Androl Urol. 2023 May 31;12(5):690-699. doi: 10.21037/tau-22-600. Epub 2023 Apr 10.

Authors

Justin P Mehr¹, Kyle A Blum¹, Travis Green^{1

2}, Skyler Howell¹, Stephen Palasi¹, Andrew T Sullivan¹, Benjamin Kim¹, Christopher Kannady^{1

2}, Run Wang^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth - Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
² Department of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Abstract

Background: Penile prosthesis surgery (PPS) is a commonly used treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), either as first-line therapy or in cases refractory to other treatment options. In patients with a urologic malignancy such as prostate cancer, surgical interventions like radical prostatectomy (RP) as well as non-surgical treatments such as radiation therapy can all induce ED. PPS as a treatment for ED has high satisfaction rates in the general population. Our aim was to compare sexual satisfaction in patients with prosthesis implantation for ED following RP versus ED following radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Methods: A retrospective chart review from our institutional database was conducted to identify patients who underwent PPS at our institution from 2011 to 2021. Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire data at least 6 months from implant operative date available was required for inclusion. Eligible patients were placed in one of two groups depending on etiology of ED-following RP or prostate cancer radiation therapy. To prevent crossover confounding; patients with history of pelvic radiation were excluded from the RP group and patients with history of RP were excluded from the radiation group. Data were obtained from 51 patients in the RP group and 32 patients in the radiation therapy group. Mean EDITS scores and additional survey questions were compared between the radiation and RP groups.

Results: There was a significant difference in mean survey responses for 8 of the 11 questions in the EDITS questionnaire between the RP group and the radiation group. Additional survey questions administered also found RP patients reported significantly higher rate of satisfaction with size of penis post-operatively versus the radiation group.

Conclusions: These preliminary findings, while requiring large-scale follow-up, suggest that there is greater sexual satisfaction and penile prosthesis device satisfaction in patients undergoing IPP placement following RP versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Use of validated questionnaires should continue to be utilized in quantifying device and sexual satisfaction following PPS.

Keywords: Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS); Inflatable penile prosthesis; prostate cancer; radiation therapy; radical prostatectomy (RP).