Premium
An audit of implanted penile prostheses in the UK
Author(s) -
AGRAWAL VINEET,
RALPH DAVID
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2006.06261.x
Subject(s) - medicine , penile prosthesis , audit , retrospective cohort study , implant , general surgery , surgery , prosthesis , management , economics
Associate Editor Michael G. Wyllie Editorial Board Ian Eardley, UK Jean Fourcroy, USA Sidney Glina, Brazil Julia Heiman, USA Chris McMahon, Australia Bob Millar, UK Alvaro Morales, Canada Michael Perelman, USA Marcel Waldinger, Netherlands OBJECTIVE To assess whether the outcome of implanting penile prostheses is related to the number of prostheses implanted by surgeons, as several reports showed that the outcome of a urological procedure is directly related to the experience of the surgeon. METHODS We conducted a retrospective audit of 413 penile prostheses implanted over a 2‐year period in the UK by 76 surgeons. RESULTS About 80% of the surgeons implanted only one or two prostheses per year, usually of the malleable type, and usually on patients in the private sector. Only four surgeons implanted >20 prostheses per year. The overall revision rate for implantation in the UK, at 24%, is far higher than the worldwide average. CONCLUSIONS Guidelines are needed on the number of prostheses a surgeon should implant per year so that revision rates will decline to more acceptable levels and patients will be offered a genuine choice of product.