Until 2019, the European Association of Urology guidelines recommended the implantation of a penile prosthesis as a third-line therapy, which has since then changed to \"if other treatments fail or depending on the patient\'s preference\". Primary endpoint was to assess whether patients with a penile prosthesis and their partner would have preferred earlier implantation. Secondary endpoints were the reason why patient and partner wanted earlier implantation, how much earlier they wanted it, satisfaction of patient and partner and if patient and partner would have recommended the intervention. We selected patients with a virgin inflatable penile prosthesis operated between April 2013 and December 2019. We included 155 patients and 65 partners. Telephonic interview was conducted in a structured manner. Further data were collected retrospectively. The preference for earlier implantation was reported in 59.4% of patients and 46.2% of partners. Of them, respectively 53.2% and 46.6% would have wanted the prosthesis more than 5 years earlier. Satisfaction was seen in 83.2% of patients and 73.8% of partners. Respectively 82.6% and 78.4% of patients and partners would recommend the procedure. Our results indicate that a more patient-oriented approach with good counseling is desirable and that the \"three-level\" concept must be abandoned.

Surgical treatments for ischemic priapism (IP) include shunts or penile implants. Non-ischemic priapism (NIP) is usually the result of penile/perineal trauma causing an arterial fistula and embolisation may be required. We conducted a systematic review on behalf of the EAU Sexual and Reproductive health Guidelines panel to analyse the available evidence on efficacy and safety of surgical modalities for IP and NIP. Outcomes were priapism resolution, sexual function and adverse events following surgery. Overall, 63 studies (n = 923) met inclusion criteria up to September 2021. For IP (n = 702), surgery comprised distal (n = 274), proximal shunts (n = 209) and penile prostheses (n = 194). Resolution occurred in 18.7-100% for distal, 5.7-100% for proximal shunts and 100% for penile prostheses. Potency rate was 20-100% for distal, 11.1-77.2% for proximal shunts, and 26.3-100% for penile prostheses, respectively. Patient satisfaction was 60-100% following penile prostheses implantation. Complications were 0-42.5% for shunts and 0-13.6% for IPP. For NIP (n = 221), embolisation success was 85.7-100% and potency 80-100%. The majority of studies were retrospective cohort studies. Risk of bias was high. Overall, surgical shunts have acceptable success rates in IP. Proximal/venous shunts should be abandoned due to morbidity/ED rates. In IP > 48 h, best outcomes are seen with penile prostheses implantation. Embolisation is the mainstay technique for NIP with high resolution rates and adequate erectile function.

Despite significant scientific advances in the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implant surgery, it is not without surgical risks and can carry additional cosmetic and psychosocial consequences in poorly selected and consented individuals. To address this problem, an international group of key opinion leaders and high-volume prosthetic surgeons reviewed the current guidelines and clinical evidence, discussed their experiences, and formed a consensus regarding inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. The findings of this consensus panel were presented at the 17th biennial Asia Pacific Society of Sexual Medicine scientific meeting. The experts concluded that proper patient selection, informed consent and strict adherence to safe surgical principles are important to optimize clinical outcomes. Furthermore, most intraoperative complications, if recognized, can be addressed intraoperatively to enable placement of the device at the time of initial surgery. Men with significant corporal fibrosis due to Peyronie\'s disease, prior prosthesis explantation and priapism, and men who have undergone construction of a neophallus, as well as men who receive concurrent continence surgery, are complex cases requiring additional care and advanced techniques to obtain optimal surgical outcomes. Variability in patient care - in terms of postoperative antibiotic use, pain management, scrotal care, and cycling of the penile prosthesis implant - must be reduced to enable optimization and assessment of outcomes across patient groups.

BACKGROUND: Peyronie\'s disease is a common cause for consultation in urology. Many controversies surround its treatment. No French Guidelines have been published so far. The Committee of Andrology and Sexual Medicine of the French Association of Urology therefore offers a series of evidence-based recommendations.
METHODS: These recommendations are made according to the ADAPTE method, based on European (EAU, ESSM), American (AUA, ISSM) and Canadian (CAU) recommendations, integrating French specificities due to the availability of treatments, and an update of the recent bibliography.
RESULTS: The assessment of the disease is clinical. Patients with functional impairment or significant psychological repercussions may be offered treatment. The benefits and drawbacks of each treatment should be explained to the patient. Regarding non-surgical treatments, no available treatment has market authorization in France. Vitamin E is not recommended. Analgesic (oral or low-intensity shock waves) or proerectile treatments may be offered as needed, as well as traction therapy. Due to the unavailability of collagenase injections, verapamil injections may be offered. Surgical treatments are to be considered in the stabilized phase of the disease, and consist of performing a plication, an incision-graft or the placement of a penile implant according to the patient\'s wishes, the curvature and the penis size, as well as erectile function. Combination treatments can be offered.
CONCLUSIONS: The management of Peyronie\'s disease is complex, and the levels of evidence for treatments are generally low. The success of treatment will depend on the quality of the initial assessment, the patient\'s information and understanding of the expected effects, and the practitioner\'s experience.

Peyronie\'s disease (PD) is a challenging clinical entity. To assist clinicians with diagnosis and management, four separate organizations have published PD guidelines over the past five years, but there remains a lack of consensus and data-driven recommendations for many aspects of diagnosis and treatment.
To compare and contrast PD guidelines, highlighting key similarities and differences among the guideline panel recommendations and identify areas for further research.
We performed an extensive review to compare and contrast diagnosis and treatment recommendations from publically available published PD guidelines from four different organizations: American Urological Association, European Association of Urology, Canadian Urologic Association, and the International Society of Sexual Medicine.
Key similarities and differences with regards to definition, evaluation, nonsurgical and surgical treatments were compared.
Points of general consensus among the guideline panels included: History is adequate for diagnosis of PD, and intracavernosal injection is a gold standard to evaluate penile deformity prior to invasive intervention. Careful counseling with shared decision-making is required prior to treatment. In general, plication and incision and/or grafting surgery is reserved for patients with preserved erectile function whereas penile prosthesis implantation is the only surgical option for PD patients with erectile dysfunction. Overall, nonsurgical treatments have inferior evidence of efficacy with these being the main area of controversy; however, all societies recognize that intralesional injections may be used. 0Further research into the pathophysiology of PD may direct novel treatments targeted towards early intervention and rigorous outcomes research may direct best practices for the surgical treatment of PD in the future.
PD is a challenging clinical entity. Direct comparison of the published PD guidelines highlights clear standards of care as well as areas where more research is needed to promote higher levels of evidence-based practice.
To our knowledge this is the first report to directly compare and contrast published guidelines pertaining to the diagnosis and management of PD. Limitations include the lack of evidence-quality review pertaining to individual guideline recommendations, although this was not the aim of this review.
We highlight consensus of major urologic societies on many aspects of work up and management of PD with notable exceptions which may guide further research. Manka MG, White LA, Yafi FA, et al. Comparing and Contrasting Peyronie\'s Disease Guidelines: Points of Consensus and Deviation. J Sex Med 2021;18:363-375.

暂无摘要。

The implantation of a penile prosthesis is considered a third-line treatment and is indicated in patients who do not respond adequately to pharmacotherapy or require definitive treatment. Currently, the most used devices are 3-component penile prostheses, which presently account for more than 90% of the implants used.
We reviewed the evidence and the recommendations of the clinical practice guidelines regarding surgery in patients with erectile dysfunction.
The recommendations of the clinical practice guidelines on surgery in patients with erectile dysfunction are summarized as follows: men with erectile dysfunction should be informed about the option of penile prosthesis implant treatment, commenting on the benefits, risks and consequences; men with erectile dysfunction who have agreed to receive penile prosthesis should be advised on post-surgical expectations; penile prosthesis implants should not be performed in patients with systemic, cutaneous or urinary tract infection; in young men with erectile dysfunction and focal penile or pelvic arterial obstruction who do not have generalized vascular disease or veno-occlusive dysfunction, penile arterial reconstruction can be considered; in men with erectile dysfunction, penile venous surgery is not recommended.
The use of penile prostheses offers high satisfaction rates to both the patient and his partner. However, it is crucial to adequately inform and warn patients about possible complications and consequences.

A lack of uniformity exists for insurance payer coverage for all categories of penile prostheses (PP). We sought to determine common insurance coverage criteria and barriers to implantation across common insurance plans from healthcare referral regions (HRR) nationwide. Coverage criteria and stipulations were reviewed regarding erectile dysfunction (ED) etiology, ED duration, contributing comorbid conditions, medications, drug use, diagnostic tests, use of procedures and prior interventions. Seventy of 100 plans included coverage criteria. 36.1% provided coverage only in cases of gender dysphoria. 27.7% required documentation of trial, contraindication or intolerance to pharmacologic therapy, with varying descriptors of what this entailed. 13.8% required at least consideration of prior pharmacologic therapy. 4.2% required trial or contraindication to classic second-line therapies. 25.0% stated that ED must be organic. Psychogenic ED was covered by 12.5% of plans. Eleven plans required at least 6 or 12 months of symptoms. Laboratory evaluation to rule out hypogonadism or hyperprolactinemia was required by five plans. Insurance coverage criteria for PP placement were highly variable by state and plan. Coverage is provided for PP implantation in most cases for ED of organic etiology following failure of pharmacologic therapy when contributing comorbidities are optimally managed.

Male genital emergencies relating to the penis and scrotum are rare and require prompt investigation and surgical intervention. Clinicians are often unfamiliar with the management of these conditions and may not work in a specialist centre with on-site expertise in genitourethral surgery. A series of consensus statements have been developed by an expert consensus committee comprising members of the BAUS Section of Andrology and Genitourethral Surgery together with experts from urology units throughout the UK. Priapism requires prompt assessment and treatment and these consensus statements provide guidance for UK practice.

Male genital emergencies relating to the penis and scrotum are rare and require prompt investigation and surgical intervention. Clinicians are often unfamiliar with the management of these conditions and may not work in a specialist centre with on-site expertise in genitourethral surgery. A series of consensus statements have been developed by an expert consensus committee comprising members of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Section of Andrology and Genitourethral Surgery together with experts from urology units throughout the UK. Penile amputation is a rare genital emergency, which requires prompt intervention and microsurgical reconstruction. The consensus statements will outline the management of these cases for non-specialist units, as well as recommendations for reconstruction for specialists.