(161) Is there a Difference in Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Mechanical Failure and Infections Rates in Relation to Prostate Cancer Treatment Modality (Radiation Therapy vs Radical Prostatectomy)

Abstract Introduction Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP) implantation as a treatment for ED has high satisfaction rates in the general population; however, there is limited literature on quantification of complication rates as stratified by ED etiology. Objective Our aim was to compare mechanical failure and infection rates in patients undergoing IPP implantation for ED following Radical Prostatectomy (RP) versus radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer. Methods A retrospective chart review from our institutional database was conducted to identify 405 patients who underwent IPP placement at our institution from 2015–2019, then selecting for those whose etiology of ED was following RP or RT. To prevent crossover confounding; patients with history of pelvic radiation or salvage radiotherapy were excluded from the RP group and patients with history of RP were excluded from the RT group. Data was obtained from 75 patients who met criteria for inclusion: 44 patients in the RP group and 31 patients in the RT group. Mechanical failure, infection rates, mean EDITS scores and additional survey questions were compared between the radiation and RP groups. Results Patient demographic information and IPP complication and satisfaction rates are listed below in Table 1 and Figure 1. There was a statistically significant difference in number of patients experiencing IPP complications, 19.4% (n=6) of patients in the RT cohort and 4.5% (n=2) in the RP cohort, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference found in stratified complications- infection rates, device erosion rates, mechanical failure rates, or device removal and/or replacement rates between the two groups. The RP cohort had a significantly higher mean Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire score versus the RT cohort, 91.58 to 76.02, respectively. Conclusions These preliminary findings, while requiring large-scale follow up, suggest that there is a higher rate of IPP related complications in patients with device placement following RT for prostate cancer versus RP. Disclosure No.