Practice patterns of Canadian penile prosthesis implanters

A survey-based analysis

Authors

  • Ahmed M. Almuhanna 1. Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada 2. Men’s Health Clinic Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
  • Dhiraj S. Bal Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3570-7535
  • Karim Sidhom University of Manitoba
  • Jessy Ory Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
  • Udi Blankstein Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
  • Ryan Flannigan Department of Urological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Premal Patel 1. Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada 2. Men’s Health Clinic Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9191

Keywords:

erectile dysfunction, practice patterns, penile prosthesis

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Penile prosthesis implantation is a well-established treatment for refractory erectile dysfunction; however, significant variations exist in surgical techniques and practice patterns, often influenced by individual surgeon experience and training. Our study aimed to identify these variations among Canadian implanters, assessing their approach to penile prosthesis surgery.

METHODS: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted to evaluate the practice patterns of Canadian surgeons performing penile prosthesis implantation. The study included implanters from all provinces who perform more than five cases annually. An anonymous electronic survey was distributed, assessing practice patterns, surgical approach, and recommendations for improving penile prosthesis surgery in Canada.

RESULTS: Seventeen Canadian urologists performing over five annual cases participated in the study, with the annual volume varying among respondents. The majority (88.2%, n=15) routinely checked HbA1c levels, with 54.5% (n=6) using a cutoff of 8%. Additionally, 58.8% (n=10) routinely ordered a urine culture, and 94.1% (n=16) performed a preoperative scrub. Just over half (52.9%, n=9) prescribed preoperative antibiotics, the majority (88.2%, n=15) used an antibiotic dip, and postoperatively, 94.1% (n=16) of respondents prescribed antibiotics. Most implanters (76.5%, n=13) primarily used a penoscrotal approach, and 47.1% (n=8) did not routinely place a drain. Respondents also indicated perceived ways to improve penile prosthesis education across Canada, focusing on patient education and surgical simulation.

CONCLUSIONS: While key aspects, such as the ideal surgical approach, HbA1c cutoffs, antibiotic regimens, and intraoperative techniques, remain debated, our findings underscore the need for further standardization. High-quality educational resources and consensus guidelines could help implanters refine their practice and improve patient outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-08-28

How to Cite

Almuhanna, A. M., Bal, D. S., Sidhom, K., Ory, J., Blankstein, U., Flannigan, R., & Patel, P. (2025). Practice patterns of Canadian penile prosthesis implanters: A survey-based analysis. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 19(12), E434–42. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9191

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 12 (2025): CUAJ December

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.