(170) Missed Urinary Leak During an Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Insertion Presenting as a Post-Operative Hydrocoele
Authors: Megson M , Pasyar A , Tagdiwala P , Kohlar T , Lee W G 
Published: March 2024

Introduction

This is a case of a revision of a three-piece penile prosthesis in a 53-year-old gentleman who had received an infrapubic implantable penile prosthesis (IPP) in Turkey over 12 months ago. He complained of an unsupported floppy shaft when the prosthesis was inflated, as well as a right hemi scrotal bulging which was exacerbated by activity but showed no signs of infection. A hydrocele had occurred 2 months following the IPP insertion and was confirmed on imaging. The MRI showed the pump within the hydrocele. He had previously had a laparoscopy gastric banding and a bilateral inguinal hernia repair with mesh.

Objective

Video to demonstrate the surgical case

Methods

This is a video demonstrating the steps of this operation. The procedure started with a transverse penoscrotal incision and dissection through the dartos muscle. The initial corporotomy allowed removal of the first cylinder of the prosthesis. Upon removing the right cylinder, the hydrocele was opened to reveal the presence of turbid fluid, 150ml of fluid was aspirated and sent for microbiology investigations. The next stage involved removal of the left cylinder and 7.5cm of rear-tip extenders (RTE) were subsequently removed intact, with further RTE from the right removed separately using a nasal speculum. Therefore, a 20cm IPP was removed with 7.5cm RTE on each side. An antibiotic salvage wash (Rifampicin/Gentamicin) was performed several times. At this point a 26cm + 1cm (13mm) malleable prosthesis was inserted as a spacer. The previous infrapubic wound was opened to remove the reservoir, 75ml of fluid was aspirated from around the reservoir prior to removal. Attempts are made to identify a possible fistula with flexible cystoscopy, but normal urethra, bladder neck and bladder are seen. Giving no evidence of any fistula into the abdominal cavity or urethral injury to explain fluid in the corporal cavities or around the components of the prosthesis. Methylene blue and distention were also used to attempt to identify a bladder leak, however this was also unremarkable. A suprapubic catheter was inserted to ensure the decompression of the urinary system to allow any small/undetected leaks to heal. This was done under direct vision using a cystoscope prior to being secured.

Results

The patient had a replacement of the inflatable penile prosthesis to a malleable prosthesis, a suprapubic catheter inserted and a drainage of his hydrocele. The patient recovered well from surgery and on examination the prosthesis tips were seated nicely in the glans. The fluid microbiology culture did not grow any organism. A subsequent cystogram showed no signs of any bladder leak. The patient was happy with the outcome and underwent a trial without catheter. He has a planned review and will be considered for an exchange to an inflatable device at this time.

Conclusions

This is an unusual presentation of a hydrocele, in the absence of any infective symptoms which is suggestive of a contained urine leak and even a missed bladder injury from the first prosthesis surgery. However, no fistula was found during the surgery or the post-operative cystogram.

Disclosure

No.