Comparing the Italian and North American prospective registries on penile prosthesis surgery: are there relevant differences in treatment indications and patients’ management?

Previous studies have shown discrepancies among countries in terms of treatment indications and patients’ management due to different health care policies. Penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) is a highly effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), which may have different accessibility according to the type of health system. We compared clinical characteristics of patients included in two national registries on PPI to investigate the influence of different health care systems on treatment indication and accessibility. The multicenter Italian Nationwide Systematic Inventarization of Surgical Treatment for ED (INSIST-ED) Registry and the multicenter Prospective Registry of Outcomes with Penile Prosthesis for Erectile Restoration (PROPPER), respectively for Italy and North America were considered. Clinical characteristics of patients included in both registries were compared using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and the Pearson’s Chi square test. Patients submitted to PPI in Italy are significantly younger (age: 61.2 vs. 63.8 years; p ≤ 0.001) compared with North America. The majority of patients are treated for post-radical prostatectomy ED in both registries (Italy: 31%; North America: 27%), although diabetes and cardiovascular diseases are more frequent reasons for PPI in the PROPPER registry (p ≤ 0.001), reflecting differences in disease prevalence among countries. In North America a non-hydraulic implant is considered only in 1% of cases as compared with 3% in Italy (p ≤ 0.001). In terms of postoperative management, a compressive surgical dressing (98% vs. 24%; p ≤ 0.001) is a more common strategy in North America. Finally, in Italy most surgeries are performed in a public hospital (82%), while the private setting (70.8%) is more common in North America (p ≤ 0.001). These findings suggest differences in health care systems between Italy and North America. A system like the American one would guarantee easier access to PPI in countries where the National Health System is mainly based on reimbursement to public hospital settings and where patients choosing private settings have to pay by themselves.