# Androgen deprivation therapy does not increase rates for reintervention, complication, or infection in primary penile implant or artificial urinary sphincter surgery: a retrospective cohort study from the TriNetX network

## TL;DR

Androgen deprivation therapy does not increase risks of complications or infections in patients undergoing penile implant or urinary sphincter surgery.

## Contribution

This study is the first to use a large-scale database to show that androgen deprivation therapy does not worsen outcomes for penile implant or urinary sphincter surgery.

## Key findings

- Patients on ADT had fewer reinterventions and complications for penile implants and urinary sphincters.
- Specific ADT drugs like bicalutamide and leuprolide were associated with reduced complication rates.
- ADT should not be a barrier to implant surgery based on these findings.

## Abstract

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 surgery 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. The only significant AUS analysis was for patients on abiraterone having fewer reinterventions (10.5% vs 20.8%, RR = 0.50 [0.29, 0.88]). 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]). Those on a GnRH agonist had fewer reinterventions (7.4% vs 11.7%, RR = 0.63 [0.41, 0.98]) for IPP. Patients receiving an IPP on bicalutamide had fewer reinterventions ( <5.2%* vs 10.8%, RR = 0.48 [0.23, 0.99]) and on leuprolide had fewer complications (12.2% vs 19.3%, RR = 0.63 [0.43, 0.91]). The remainder of analyses showed no significant differences. 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.