The process map of penile prosthesis implantation in outpatient surgery in Spain: a consensus document

Mapa del proceso de implantación de prótesis de pene en cirugía mayor ambulatoria en España: documento de consenso

Penile prosthesis (PP) implantation is feasible as an outpatient surgery. The present study describes the surgical process and establishes a consensus for improving the care circuit for outpatient PP implantation in Spain. A working group composed of a scientific committee with extensive experience in PP implantation and representatives of important scientific societies reached a consensus about the recommendations for outpatient PP implantation. The consensus was based on a structured methodology and evidence extracted from a systematic review, literature review and clinical experience. This study details the consensus reached regarding the profile of patients who are candidates for outpatient PP implantation; the care process in the presurgical, surgical and postsurgical phases; and the quality indicators for monitoring and evaluating the quality-of-care standards for outpatient PP implantation. Based on the insights of the working group, this study gives a description of the process map of outpatient PP implantation and promotes the map as a useful tool for urologist physicians and hospital managers.

Resumen

La implantación de prótesis de pene (PP) es un procedimiento factible a realizar en el entorno de la cirugía mayor ambulatoria. El presente estudio describe el proceso quirúrgico y establece un consenso para mejorar el circuito asistencial de la implantación ambulatoria de PP en España. Un grupo de trabajo compuesto por un comité científico con amplia experiencia en la implantación de PP y representantes de importantes sociedades científicas consensuaron las recomendaciones para la implantación ambulatoria de PP. Se estableció un consenso basado en una metodología estructurada y en la evidencia extraída de una revisión sistemática, una revisión de la literatura y la experiencia clínica. Este estudio describe el consenso alcanzado en relación con el perfil de los pacientes candidatos a la implantación ambulatoria de PP; el proceso asistencial en las fases prequirúrgica, quirúrgica y posquirúrgica; así como los indicadores de calidad necesarios para el seguimiento y la evaluación de las normas de calidad asistencial para la implantación ambulatoria de PP. A partir de las reflexiones del grupo de trabajo, este estudio establece un mapa del proceso de implantación ambulatoria de PP y promueve el mapa como herramienta útil para los médicos urólogos y los gestores hospitalarios.

Consensus; Erectile dysfunction; Outpatient surgery; Penile prosthesis; Quality indicators

Palabras Clave

Consenso; Disfunción eréctil; Cirugía mayor ambulatoria, Prótesis de pene; Indicadores de calidad

[1] Salonia A, Bettocchi C, Capogrosso P, Carvalho J, Corona G, Dinkelman-Smit M, et al. EAU guidelines on sexual and reproductive health. 2023. Available at: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/sexual-and-reproductive-health (Accessed: 31 January 2024).

[2] Pisano F, Falcone M, Abbona A, Oderda M, Soria F, Peraldo F, et al. The importance of psychosexual counselling in the re-establishment of organic and erotic functions after penile prosthesis implantation. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2015; 27: 197–200.

[3] Corona G, Santi D, Cocci A, Vena W, Pizzocaro A, Vignozzi L, et al. Long-term penile prosthesis couple’s satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. To be published in Andrology. 2024. [Preprint].

[4] Picola N, Torremade J, Fiol M, Fernández-Concha JJ, Beato S, Vigués F. Analysis of satisfaction and surgical outcomes of a major ambulatory surgery program for penile implant. Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2020; 44: 262–267.

[5] Mondaini N, Sarti E, Giubilei G, Gavazzi A, Costanzi A, Belba A, et al. Penile prosthesis surgery in out-patient setting: effectiveness and costs in the “spending review” era. Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia. 2014; 86: 161–163.

[6] Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Major ambulatory surgery unit manual: standards and recommendations. 2008. Available at: https://www.asecma.org/Documentos/Blog/LIB_I_1_C_1.PDF (Accessed: 31 January 2024).

[7] Ministerio de Sanidad. Surgical interventions performed in hospitals of the National Health System (NHS). Percentage of Major Outpatient Surgery (M.A.S.) interventions over the total number of interventions. 2021. Available at: https://www.sanidad.gob.es/estadEstudios/sanidadDatos/tablas/tabla26.htm (Accessed: 05 February 2024).

[8] Davis JE, Sugioka K. Selecting the patient for major ambulatory surgery. Surgical and anesthesiology evaluations. The Surgical clinics of North America. 1987; 67: 721–732.

[9] Torremadé J, Presa M, Gorría Ó, de Burgos R, Oyagüez I, Lledó E. Systematic review of the implantation of penile prosthesis in major ambulatory surgery. Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2023; 47: 341–350.

[10] Brignardello-Petersen R, Carrasco-Labra A, Guyatt GH. How to interpret and use a clinical practice guideline or recommendation: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2021; 326: 1516–1523.

[11] Halvorsen S, Mehilli J, Cassese S, Hall TS, Abdelhamid M, Barbato E, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2022 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. European Heart Journal. 2022; 43: 3826–3924.

[12] Vivas D, Roldán I, Ferrandis R, Marín F, Roldán V, Tello-Montoliu A, et al. Perioperative and periprocedural management of antithrombotic therapy: consensus document of SEC, SEDAR, SEACV, SECTCV, AEC, SECPRE, SEPD, SEGO, SEHH, SETH, SEMERGEN, SEMFYC, SEMG, SEMICYUC, SEMI, SEMES, SEPAR, SENEC, SEO, SEPA, SERVEI, SECOT and AEU. Revista Española de Cardiología. 2018; 71: 553–564.

[13] American Society of Anesthesiologists. Statement on ASA physical status classification system. 2020. Available at: https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-practice-parameters/statement-on-asa-physical-status-classification-system (Accessed: 05 February 2024).

[14] The Stationery Office. Commission for healthcare audit and inspection account 2004–2005. 2005. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c4618ed915d76e2ebc417/0373.pdf (Accessed: 05 February 2024).

[15] Giordano A, Smarrazzo F, Cilio S, Califano G, Collà Ruvolo C, Verze P. History of penile implants: from implants made of bone to modern inflatable penile implants. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2023; 35: 601–608.

[16] Kashanian JA, Golan R, Sun T, Patel NA, Lipsky MJ, Stahl PJ, et al. Trends in penile prosthetics: influence of patient demographics, surgeon volume, and hospital volume on type of penile prosthesis inserted in New York State. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2018; 15: 245–250.

[17] Wang VM, Levine LA. Safety and efficacy of inflatable penile prostheses for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: evidence to date. Medical Devices. 2022; 15: 27–36.

[18] Manfredi C, Fortier É, Faix A, Martínez-Salamanca JI. Penile implant surgery satisfaction assessment. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2021; 18: 868–874.

[19] May E, Hanley M, Mulcahy JJ, Gross MS. Technological advances in penile implants: past, present, future. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2023; 35: 629–633.

[20] Barnard JT, Cakir OO, Ralph D, Yafi FA. Technological advances in penile implant surgery. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2021; 18: 1158–1166.

[21] Carson CC 3rd. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. The Journal of Urology. 2004; 171: 1611–1614.

[22] Henry GD. Historical review of penile prosthesis design and surgical techniques: part 1 of a three-part review series on penile prosthetic surgery. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2009; 6: 675–681.

[23] Torremadé J, Presa M, Gorría Ó, Torres E, Oyagüez I, Lledó E. Cost-consequence analysis of penile prosthesis implantation in outpatient setting in Spain. International Journal of Healthcare Management. 2024; 17: 160–167.

[24] Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2011; 128: 305–310.