Back to 2025 Abstracts
Body Mass Index and Complication Profiles in Patients Undergoing Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement: A Large Multi-Institutional Study
Stephen Harrington, M.D.1, Muhammed Hammad, M.D.
2, David Barham, M.D.
3, Robert Andrianne, M.D., Ph.D.
4, Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad, M.D.
5, Kelli Gross, M.D.
6, Georgios Hatzichristodoulou, M.D.
7, James Hotaling, M.D.
6, Tung-Chin Hsieh, M.D.
8, Aaron Lentz, M.D.
9, Vaibhav Modgil, BM, MSc
10, Daniar Osmonov, M.D.
11, Sung Hun Park, M.D.
12, Faysal Yafi, M.D.
2, Paul Perito, M.D.
13, Jay Simhan, M.D.
14, Koenraad van Renterghem, M.D., Ph.D.
15, Ambrose Orr, M.D.
1, Vikram Lyall, M.D.
1, Richard Bellemare, M.D.
1, Remington Lim, M.D.
1, Nicholas Moll, M.D.
1, Martin Gross, M.D.
1.
1Section of Urology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA,
2Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA,
3Department of Surgery, Urology Section, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX, USA,
4Department of Urology, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium,
5Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA,
6Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA,
7Department of Urology, Martha-Maria Hospital Nuremburg, Nuremburg, Germany,
8Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA,
9Department of Urology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA,
10Manchester Andrology Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom,
11Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany,
12Sewum Prosthetic Urology, Seoul, Korea, Republic of,
13Perito Urology, Coral Gables, FL, USA,
14Department of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA,
15Department of Urology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a prevalent public health concern with widespread implications for medical procedures and outcomes. In the context of inflatable penile prosthesis placement (IPP), where patient well-being and surgical success are of paramount importance, the impact of obesity on postoperative and intraoperative complications warrants investigation. This study aimed to investigate the impact of BMI on both postoperative and intraoperative complications in an international, multi-institutional cohort of patients who underwent IPP placement.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 4,398 cases. These cases were divided into two groups based on BMI: <30 (n=2,260) and ≥30 (n=2,138). The study assessed surgical factors as well as complications, including overall complications, corporal scarring, incontinence, intraoperative complications, proximal perforation, distal perforation, proximal crossover, distal crossover, and urethral injury.
RESULTS: Our analysis revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative or postoperative complications between the BMI categories. Notably, proximal corporal measurement was significantly higher for ≥30 BMI group (9.55 +/- 2.18) compared to <30 BMI group (9.14 +/- 2.19), (p=<0.001). The incidence rates for overall complications (30.2% vs. 28.7%; p=0.164), corporal scarring (18.2% vs. 16.7%; p=0.36), incontinence (3.53% vs. 3.13%; p=0.076), intraoperative complications (1.94% vs. 1.68%; p=0.253), and specific complications all exhibited no significant differences. Similarly, postoperative complications, including both noninfectious (6.99% vs. 6.22%; p=0.215) and infectious (2.61% vs. 1.87%; p=0.165) complications, did not significantly vary between BMI categories.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that BMI does not have statistically significant influence on postoperative and intraoperative complications in the context of high-volume prosthetic urology. In the absence of any other differences between patients of differing BMIs, surgeons should be mindful of pump tubing length concerns in obese patients.
Back to 2025 Abstracts
