When feasible from an oncologic standpoint, partial penectomy (PP) is often preferred to total penectomy (TP) for penile cancer treatment, for the preservation of functional urinary outcomes. However, to date, there has not been a direct comparison of perioperative outcomes between PP and TP. Comparing treatments for penile cancer has proven difficult due to the rarity of penile cancer in the United States. We aimed to report differences in pre-operative risk factors, intra-operative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes between TP and PP for penile cancer. Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we conducted a retrospective cohort review of penile cancer patients enlisted in the database between the years 2006-2016 using the International Classification of Diseases clinical modification 9th revision codes. A total of 260 patients, 67 TP and 193 PP patients, were included. PP patients were less likely to be transferred patients (p = 0.002), diabetic (p = 0.026), and were more likely to have preoperative laboratory values within normal limits. PP patients also had shorter lengths of stay in the hospital (p < 0.001) and operating time (p < 0.001). Significant differences were also found for inpatient stay (p < 0.001), 30-day post-surgery complications (p < 0.001), deep incisional surgical site infection (SSI) (p = 0.017), wound disruption (p = 0.017), intraoperative or postoperative transfusion (p = 0.029), and sepsis (p < 0.005). Finally, PP patients required fewer concurrent surgical procedures (p < 0.001). Demographic differences between PP and TP patients may reflect patients presenting with more advanced oncologic disease. PP is associated with fewer postoperative complications, shorter surgeries, shorter hospital stays, fewer concurrent surgical procedures, and comorbid conditions compared to TP. A gap remains in the reported data pertaining to postoperative sexual function and erectile outcomes for PP at a national level.
International journal of impotence research. 2024 Jun 18 [Epub ahead of print]
David A Velasquez, Allison Liu, Senthooran Kalidoss, Clinton Yeaman, Darren Bryk, Judy N Fustok, Thomas M Shelton, Hasan Alhameedi, Nalin Payakachat, Mohamed Kamel, Braian R Ledesma, Mahmoud I Khalil, Ryan Smith, Omer Raheem
University of Chicago, Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, Chicago, IL, USA., University of Virginia, Department of Urology, Charlottesville, VA, USA., Johns Hopkins University, Department of Radiology, Baltimore, MD, USA., University of Indiana, Department of Urology, Indianapolis, IN, USA., University of Arkansas, Division of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, Arkansas, AR, USA., Desai Sethi Urology Institute University of Miami, Department of Urology, Miami, FL, USA., University of Chicago, Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, Chicago, IL, USA. .