Androgen Deprivation Therapy Does Not Increase Rates for Reintervention, Complication, or Infection in Primary Penile Implant or Artificial Urinary Sphincter Surgery

Prostate cancer treatment-related erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence are commonly treated with inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) or artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). Given the association with androgens and penile/urethral health, we aim to evaluate whether patients on Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) undergoing IPP or AUS are at increased risk for reintervention, complication, or infection. We queried the TriNetX database for adult males receiving IPP or AUS. The ADT cohort included those on ADT 3 months before or any time after surgery. We performed sub-analysis for leuprolide and bicalutamide. Cohorts and outcomes were defined by Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes. Propensity score matching was performed using age, prostate cancer, history of prostatectomy, and history of radiation. Outcomes were reintervention (revision, removal, or replacement), infection, and complication. Analytics were performed in March 2024. 13,432 patients received an IPP and 5676 received an AUS, 465 and 745 of whom were on ADT, respectively. Patients receiving an IPP with ADT had fewer reinterventions (7.2% vs 12%, RR = 0.60 [0.39, 0.92]) and complications (12.7% vs 18.5%, RR = 0.68 [0.49, 0.95]). Patients receiving an IPP on Bicalutamide or Leuprolide had fewer reinterventions (< 5.2%* vs 10.8%, RR = 0.48 [0.23, 0.99]) and complications (12.2% vs 19.3%, RR = 0.63 [0.43, 0.91]). The remainder of analyses, including comparisons of patients on antiandrogens against those not on ADT, GnRH antagonists against those not on ADT, and abiraterone against those not on ADT, showed no significant differences. There were ≤10 instances of reintervention for IPP patients on bicalutamide, thus TriNetX rounded up to 10 (denoted by *) to protect patient identity. Patients with IPP or AUS do not fare worse on ADT. Further evaluation into the duration of ADT may provide clinical context, but based on these results, ADT should not limit implant surgery.