Abstract
Penile shunting is the standard of care in management of ischemic priapism refractory (IPR) to non-surgical interventions. Due to high rates of impotence, corporal fibrosis, and loss of penile length, recent literature suggests these patients benefit from immediate penile prosthesis (PP) placement. An IRB-exempt anonymous electronic survey of the 2168 members of the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) was conducted. The survey included demographic information, confidence, and experience-related management of IPR. The aim was to evaluate current practice patterns in management of IPR and to investigate the role of immediate PP implantation in the management of prolonged (>36 h) IPR. The survey response rate was 11.6% (n = 251). Most respondents were urologists (173), from the USA (49.1%), and had completed a fellowship in male sexual medicine, men's health, reconstruction, or andrology (71.1%). The majority (91.3%) see at least one case of prolonged priapism (>36 h) that requires surgical management yearly. When looking at volume in training and after, our respondents had a significantly higher experience with penile prostheses (over 70%, > = 10) as compared with shunts (less than 40%, > = 10). Overall, 70.9% of respondents felt more comfortable with a malleable PP than a shunt. However, penile shunts are still preferred as the first line of surgical management by ~80% of respondents as compared with 12.7% who instead prefer a PP. We also found that under 40% of respondents currently use penile MRI or corporal biopsies in their management of prolonged assessment. This is the first study to assess current clinical practices in management of IPR globally. As in any anonymous self-reported survey-based research, recall and sampling bias are an inherent limitation. Penile shunting for IPR continues to be the preferred treatment despite emerging data. Respondents performed PP surgery routinely and feel more confident placing PP than performing penile shunting procedures.