Surgical Techniques in Penoscrotal Implantation of an Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: A Guide to Increasing Patient Satisfaction and Surgeon Ease

Penoscrotal inflatable penile prosthesis recipients often fully recover from pain at two weeks following placement

The symptoms and duration of pain following inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery remains poorly understood. We characterize postoperative pain following penoscrotal 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement in patients managed with a standardized pain management protocol. This is a single-center prospective analysis of 96 virginal penoscrotal 3-piece IPP recipients (9/2019 to 9/2021) excluding patients with chronic pain, IPPs performed with alternative approaches or concomitantly with other surgeries and those with infections. Standardized pain questionnaire was performed by phone on post-operative day (POD) 2, 7, 14, and 30. The primary outcome was self-reported pain scores, measured by pain score 0-10 (0 = no pain, 10 = unbearable, "worst pain you have ever felt") at various locations (incision, penile, scrotal, abdominal) over the first 30 days postoperatively. A majority of pain reported was outside the scrotal area with 67.6% of complaints in the shaft, glans, abdomen and incision. From POD2 to POD30, there was a significant decrease in severe pain from 46.2 to 11.1% (p = 0.05) with an increase in mild pain from 23.1 to 62.4% (p = 0.05). Roughly half of the participants (47.9%, n = 46) reported no pain by POD14. Penoscrotal IPP recipients often fully recover from pain at the two-week period following surgery and those with lingering discomfort predominantly complain of penile shaft and glans pain.

Penoscrotal approach for inflatable penile prosthesis implant: why it should be preferred

INTRODUCTION

Inflatable penile prosthesis are the definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction. The two most used surgical approaches to position the implants are the penoscrotal and the infrapubic. Current trends showed that the penoscrotal approach is extensively preferred however, there is not conclusive evidence demonstrating the superiority of one technique over the other. The aim of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence available and to underline strengths and weaknesses of the two techniques.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed to identify relevant published articles. The included studies had to explicitly examine the use of three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis with a focus on the surgical access method and complications.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-six articles were included in the review: seven narrative reviews, five retrospective observational studies, five prospective observational studies, and nine mixed methodology studies. The most frequent approach was the penoscrotal, which was also found more comfortable (RG1) by the operators in one study. The infrapubic approach lasts less and one study demonstrated higher satisfaction by the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of significant differences in complications among the penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches. While the infrapubic approach is faster and patients were more satisfied, the penoscrotal approach is the most used by far. This is likely related to the more straightforward procedure through this access and the excellent surgical field exposure. For these reasons, it is also preferred in the most complex cases.

Safety outcomes of the first Rigi10™ malleable penile prostheses implanted worldwide

Implantation of penile prosthesis is considered when conservative measures fail or are unacceptable to patients' wishing treatment for erectile dysfunction. In the United States (US), inflatable penile prostheses are more often used than malleable penile prostheses (MPP). Outside the US, the reverse is true because third-party reimbursement is not available, and MPP is considerably cheaper. Two American manufacturers make MPP; presently, a new manufacturer, Rigicon (Ronkonkoma NY), has recently begun to sell its MPP worldwide. Patient information forms submitted to the manufacturer between March 1, 2019, and December 8, 2022, were used to conduct an initial safety study for 605 first-time patients implanted with Rigicon10® by 46 physicians in 15 countries with a mean follow-up of 21.6 months. It has the same configuration of trimmable, paired silicone rods containing a twisted stainless-steel wire for bendability. However, it is available in six widths with hydrophilic coating compared to three widths offered by competitors. Revision or explantation was needed in 6 of 605 patients (0.99%) with half of those being removed for dissatisfaction (0.50%). Two (0.33%) suffered device infection and one (0.16%) required removal for erosion. Kaplan-Meier's statistical analysis showed three-year implant survival from revision = 99.2%. It demonstrated a comparable safety record with less than 1.00% of patients requiring reoperation.

Safety and efficacy of Rezūm™ in erectile dysfunction patients with and without an inflatable penile prosthesis[[es]]Seguridad y eficacia del sistema Rezūm® en pacientes con disfunción eréctil con y sin prótesis de pene inflable

PURPOSE

This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of Rezūm™ in erectile dysfunction (ED) patients with and without an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective review of ED patients who underwent Rezūm™ by a single surgeon over 12 months. Patient age, presence of IPP, number of benign prostatic hyperplasia medications, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS Quality of Life Index (QOL), uroflowmetry maximum flow rate (Q_max), and uroflowmetry average flow rate (Q_avg) before and after Rezūm™ were obtained. Independent two-sample T-tests were used to compare preoperative and postoperative characteristics between patients with and without an IPP. Linear regression was performed to identify factors associated with postoperative Q_max or Q_avg.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients with ED who underwent Rezūm™ were identified, including 11 patients with an IPP. The median follow-up after Rezūm™ was 65 days. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics and clinical characteristics between patients with and without an IPP. Postoperative Q_max (10.9 mL/s vs 9.8 mL/s, p = 0.04) and Q_avg (7.5 mL/s vs 6.0 mL/s, p = 0.03) were significantly higher in patients with an IPP compared to patients without an IPP. There were no factors associated with postoperative Q_max or Q_avg on linear regression. Two patients without an IPP went into urinary retention, while no complications occurred in IPP patients.

CONCLUSION

Rezūm™ is a safe and effective procedure to perform in ED patients, particularly those with an IPP. IPP patients may experience greater increase in uroflowmetry rate compared to ED patients without an IPP.

The clinical significance of imperfection: is idiopathic corporal asymmetry related to curvature during penile prosthesis placement?

Patient satisfaction after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) has been linked to preexisting curvature; however the association with intraoperative asymmetric corporal measurements (ACM) has not been well described. We sought to identify incidence of ACM during IPP surgery, and relationship to penile curvature. A retrospective review of all patients undergoing primary IPP placement between 6/2019 and 6/2021 was performed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ACM and need for adjunct straightening techniques. A total of 273 patients underwent primary IPP. 27.8% had Peyronie's disease (PD) diagnosed preoperatively or detected intraoperatively. ACM was identified in 20.1% (55/273) patients. There was no significant difference in ACM in PD versus non-PD patients (p = 0.55). Most patients with ACM (78.2%, 43/55) underwent placement of asymmetric device. ACM did not predict need for invasive straightening maneuvers (p = 0.12). However ACM patients were significantly more likely to have mild residual curvature than those with symmetry (p < 0.0001). Our study is first to address management of idiopathic ACM and association with curvature, providing new insight into a common situation. While ACM was detected in 20%, it did not predict need for adjunct straightening techniques. Our findings may provide reassurance to urologists troubleshooting idiopathic ACM during corporal dilation during IPP surgery.

A Unique Case of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP) Implantation and Mesh Phalloplasty in a Patient Born with Congenital Fusiform Megalourethra

We present the first case of a patient born with congenital fusiform megalourethra who underwent the successful placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and mesh phalloplasty due to primary erectile dysfunction (ED). After an extensive psychosexual assessment and a preoperative MRI scan, an IPP was successfully implanted. The procedure was carried out through a penoscrotal approach, which offered excellent exposure to the crura and the proximal ends of the corpora cavernosa. Following the incision and the dilatation of both corpora cavernosa, the penile cylinders were inserted and a mesh phalloplasty was performed, to replace the erectile tissues lacking in the distal corpora cavernosa. After reservoir and pump placement, the device was tested, and no mechanical issues were recorded. The postoperative course was uneventful, and, at the 2-year follow-up, the patient reported highly satisfactory results, with valid functional erections.

The International Penile Prosthesis Implant Consensus Forum: clinical recommendations and surgical principles on the inflatable 3-piece penile prosthesis implant

Despite significant scientific advances in the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implant surgery, it is not without surgical risks and can carry additional cosmetic and psychosocial consequences in poorly selected and consented individuals. To address this problem, an international group of key opinion leaders and high-volume prosthetic surgeons reviewed the current guidelines and clinical evidence, discussed their experiences, and formed a consensus regarding inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. The findings of this consensus panel were presented at the 17th biennial Asia Pacific Society of Sexual Medicine scientific meeting. The experts concluded that proper patient selection, informed consent and strict adherence to safe surgical principles are important to optimize clinical outcomes. Furthermore, most intraoperative complications, if recognized, can be addressed intraoperatively to enable placement of the device at the time of initial surgery. Men with significant corporal fibrosis due to Peyronie's disease, prior prosthesis explantation and priapism, and men who have undergone construction of a neophallus, as well as men who receive concurrent continence surgery, are complex cases requiring additional care and advanced techniques to obtain optimal surgical outcomes. Variability in patient care - in terms of postoperative antibiotic use, pain management, scrotal care, and cycling of the penile prosthesis implant - must be reduced to enable optimization and assessment of outcomes across patient groups.

Inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir placement-Are we ready for a paradigm change?

In 2002, Steve Wilson pioneered new procedures for alternative placement of reservoirs for inflatable prostheses in patients who have suffered damage to the space of Retzius following pelvic surgery or obliteration of the transversalis fascia by mesh hernia repair. Since then, surgical techniques and tools for ectopic reservoir placement have gradually gained acceptance to minimize palpability, and the risk of visceral and vascular lesions for high risk patients has been all but eliminated. Lockout valves and high submuscular placement techniques are now recommended, and reports of vascular, bowel or bladder injuries are uncommonly rare. While surgeons continue their search for safer and more effective placement methods, new skills and instruments are constantly being introduced to make recommendations to minimize complications and provide safety and functionality. Additional studies and comparisons of techniques are needed to achieve a consensus of best practice for reservoir placement solutions.

Optimizing Outcomes in Penile Implant Surgery

Since their initial release in the 1970s, modern penile prostheses have been subjected to continuous improvement with respect to both device engineering and surgical technique. Proper implantation begins with appropriate patient selection and counseling; these are essential elements to optimize results and set expectations postoperatively. An evidence-based protocol for the prevention of infections is essential. A pain management protocol should be initiated even before surgery. Strict adherence to recommended intraoperative techniques minimizes the risk complications; when complications occur, a step-by-step process for management improves odds of resolution. Safe techniques to increase the perceived or actual penile length postimplant can markedly improve patient satisfaction. Postoperatively, the surgeon and the patient should follow strict evidence-based instructions to optimize the overall outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery.

"Pumpology": the Realistic Issues Associated with Pump Placement in Prosthetic Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper was to discuss the issues and/or overt complications associated with the 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (3-IPP) pump. We also addressed how to resolve such issues with or without surgical intervention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous modifications of the 3-IPP pump have been introduced with multiple techniques to place the pump. These are largely dependent on the approach to place the 3-IPP. Pump issues may inevitably occur, and there are numerous special maneuvers that can be performed to resolve pump issues. It is important for urologists to know maneuvers for pump malfunctions to prevent unnecessary surgical procedures and pump revision. Several studies are reviewed regarding pump issues and patient satisfaction; however, a more structured prospective research project is warranted to further evaluate these issues.

Inflatable penile prosthesis malfunction after prostatic urethral lift

We report a case of malfunction of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) after prostatic urethral lift (PUL) necessitating surgical intervention. A 70 year-old male underwent PUL for benign prostatic hyperplasia after IPP implant for organic erectile dysfunction. After PUL, the patient experienced IPP malfunction where he underwent subsequent IPP removal and replacement. A pinhole defect was noted in the reservoir upon removal attributable to PUL. Performing PUL before IPP implantation should be considered in light of potential iatrogenic PUL needle deployment injury.

Analysis of satisfaction and surgical outcomes of a major ambulatory surgery program for penile implant

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Penile prosthesis (PP) surgery is performed in many institutions as an inpatient procedure. We have recently initiated a major ambulatory surgery (MAS) program, thus reducing the hospital stay. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility, complications and satisfaction of the implantation of outpatient surgery PP program in our hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective observational study evaluating the results and satisfaction of PP implanted as an outpatient procedure in Bellvitge University Hospital during 2018.

RESULTS

During 2018 we implanted 49 PP: 27 (55%) inpatient surgeries vs. 22 (45%) outpatient surgeries. Of these 22, 2 (9%) were second implants. All patients underwent both general anesthesia and crural, proximal dorsal nerve and transversus abdominis plane block (TAP). Complication rates between inpatient and outpatient procedures were similar, 2 (7%) and 1 (5%), respectively, without reporting infections or requiring PP removal. Postoperatively, a satisfaction telephone survey was conducted in 19 (86%) patients: 16 (84%) considered the time of hospital stay as appropriate, 15 (79%) would have preferred to be operated again in an outpatient care setting and 15 (79%) would recommend it. The patients' main concerns were related to being at home with no medical assistance at home and about coming back the next day for drainage removal. All patients reported well-controlled pain without requiring opioid intake in any case.

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, PP implantation in an ambulatory care setting is feasible and safe. Although there are some aspects that should be improved, the program showed acceptable satisfaction rates and an adequate postoperative pain control, neither raising the administration of opioids, nor increasing complications and re-admission rates.

Infrapubic surgical approach for penile prosthesis surgery: Indications and technique

CONTEXT

Penile prosthesis surgery is currently the most effective treatment for erectile dysfunction when medical treatment is ineffective or contraindicated. Among the surgical approaches described in the literature, the scrotal, infrapubic and subcoronal are the most common in the daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives were to describe the infrapubic surgical technique evaluating its indications and complications, as well as comparing its advantages and disadvantages with the penoscrotal approach.

ACQUISITION AND SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE

A literature review from 1983 until current date was carried out in Medline (PubMed and Cochrane Library databases) following PRISMA standards. Sixteen studies were included: 4 prospective, 4 retrospective, one systematic review, one randomized trial, one original article, 5 expert opinion/surgical technique descriptive paper.

DISCUSSION

According to the literature reviewed, although the penoscrotal approach is the most applied, the infrapubic approach showed a shorter operative time and a tendency for an earlier recovery of sexual activity after surgery. Complications are rare, having similar rates to the penoscrotal approach; no cases of glans hypoesthesia have been reported and peri-prosthetic infection rates were less than 3%. Satisfaction rates of infrapubic penile prosthesis were higher than 80%.

CONCLUSIONS

Penile prosthesis implantation requires of a profound knowledge of the different surgical approaches in order to best adapt each technique based on each individualized case. The infrapubic approach, even if it is not the most used, is as feasible and reliable as the penoscrotal approach. The infrapubic approach is effective and safe, with high level of both, patients and partners' satisfaction.

Novel protective penile collar following inflatable penile prosthesis placement: The "Wang Collar"

Penile rehabilitation after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation for the treatment of erectile dysfunction includes leaving the device partially inflated so as to preserve the penile length and to maintain hemostasis. With a partially inflated device, the penis becomes more sensitive and more susceptible to unintended insults during the immediate postoperative management. The “Wang Collar,” a device intended to protect the penis in the early postoperative period, is hereby described. Three hundred and forty-eight patients had the “Wang Collar” included as part of their post-IPP management from August 2014 to February 2019. The protective collar, devised from a polystyrene cup with the bottom removed, is secured with a tape over the previously dressed and partially inflated penis. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of this device, we conducted surveys on the perioperative staff at three different institutions. The “Wang Collar” has been found to be beneficial in the early postoperative care of patients. Based on the answers to our questionnaire, the perioperative personnel found this device to be highly protective, especially when transporting the patient after IPP surgery, easy to work with, and almost never bothersome or irritative to the patient. We present a novel penile device after IPP placement, which we have found to improve patient satisfaction in the postoperative period. In addition, it eases the care of the patient by the perioperative staff. It is now our routine to use this device after IPP surgery. Further research is necessary to evaluate whether this device can decrease postoperative wound complications.

Long-Term Follow-Up After Penile Prosthesis Implantation-Survival and Quality of Life Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Hydraulic penile prostheses have shown an overall good mechanical reliability up to 10 years after surgery; however, few data have been published on very long-term follow-up.

AIM

We looked at long-term (≥15 years) complications, including functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes, after 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation in patients with erectile dysfunction (ED).

METHODS

Data regarding 149 patients submitting to IPP placement before 2001 were analyzed. All patients were implanted with AMS CX and Ultrex Plus 3-piece prostheses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Patients were reassessed to evaluate rates of complications and functional outcomes. The validated questionnaire Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) was used to assess patient QoL. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated the probability of prosthesis survival (defined as working device/not-explanted).

RESULTS

Median follow-up of 51 patients was 206 months (interquartile range [IQR], 145-257). The etiology of ED was vasculogenic (n = 20; 39%), Peyronie's disease (n = 15; 29%), pelvic surgery (n = 4; 7.8%), organic other than vasculogenic (n = 3; 5.9%), or other (n = 9; 18%). Throughout the follow-up, 24 patients (49%) experienced complications: mechanical failure (n = 19; 79%), pain (n = 3; 12%), orgasmic dysfunctions (n = 1; 4.5%), or device infection (n = 1; 4.5%). The estimated IPP survival was 53% (95% CI, 36-67) at 20-year follow-up. Baseline characteristics (age, Charlson comorbidity index, body mass index, and erectile dysfunction etiology) were not significantly associated with the risk of IPP failure over time by Cox regression analysis. At 20-year follow-up, 41% (95% CI, 19-49) of the patients were still using the device. Among them, QoLSPP median domain scores were high: functional 22/25 (IQR, 20-23), relational 17/20 (IQR, 15-18), personal 14/15 (IQR, 12-15), and social 14/15 (IQR, 11-15).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The longevity of the device and long-term satisfaction rates should be comprehensively discussed during patient consultation for IPP surgery.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting long-term QoL outcomes using a dedicated questionnaire for penile prostheses. The low response rate for the telephone interviews, the retrospective design of the study, and the relatively small number of patients are the main limitations.

CONCLUSION

Long-term follow-up data after IPP placement showed that almost half of the devices still worked properly 20 years after the original penile implant, as 60% of patients were still using the device with high satisfaction and adequate QoL outcomes. Both patients and physicians should be aware of the expected life and outcomes of IPP implants. Chierigo F, Capogrosso P, Dehò, et al. Long-Term Follow-Up After Penile Prosthesis Implantation-Survival and Quality of Life Outcomes. J Sex Med 2019;16:1827-1833.

Non-Infectious Reservoir-Related Complications During and After Penile Prosthesis Placement

INTRODUCTION

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery offers a high satisfaction rate and low rate of complications when performed by experienced surgeons. However, reservoir placement, either in the space of Retzius (SOR), or alternative/ectopic locations, may lead to an array of serious complications that may require revision surgery.

AIM

To review the prevalence and management options for non-infectious intraoperative and postoperative complications related to prosthetic reservoirs.

METHODS

A Medline PubMed search was used to identify articles related to IPP reservoir-related complications including bladder and bowel injury, vascular injury, autoinflation, herniation, palpability, leakage, and tubing torsion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Rates and types of reservoir-related complications during and after IPP surgery.

RESULTS

Non-infectious reservoir-related complications in the intraoperative setting include injury to pelvic structures such as bladder, bowel, and blood vessels. In the postoperative setting, patients may experience autoinflation and reservoir herniation that might require revision surgery. Patients undergoing alternative reservoir placement (ARP) may complain of reservoir palpability and premature mechanical failure secondary to reservoir leakage or tubing torsion.

CONCLUSION

Although most surgeons continue to use the SOR as the main location for reservoir placement, ARP has gained popularity owing to its low risk of bother, minimal loss of functionality, and safety advantages in patients with history of pelvic surgery. Both reservoir placement in the SOR and ARP carry a low rate of complications while maintaining a high satisfaction rate. Clavell-Hernández J, Shah A, Wang R. Non-Infectious Reservoir-Related Complications During and After Penile Prosthesis Placement. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:521-529.

Successful Use of an Inflatable Penile Prosthesis for the Treatment of Distal Deficiency of the Tunica Albuginea and Cavernous Tissue

Introduction

Congenital hypoplasia of the distal half of the tunica albuginea has not been previously described.

Aim

To review a patient presenting with erectile dysfunction secondary to congenital penile hypoplasia.

Methods

History, physical exam and penile Doppler ultrasound of the patient, followed by a discussed of treatment options and definitive management.

Results

Successful operative treatment of our patient with insertion of an inflatable penile prosthesis.

Conclusion

We present a case of congenital hypoplasia of the distal tunica albuginea and a successful treatment strategy. We highlight the need for further study of penile embryology.

Punjani N, McGarry P, Brock G. Successful Use of an Inflatable Penile Prosthesis for the Treatment of Distal Deficiency of the Tunica Albuginea and Cavernous Tissue. Sex Med 2018;6:356–359.

Biofilm and Infectious Agents Present at the Time of Penile Prosthesis Revision Surgery: Times Are a Changing

INTRODUCTION

Although infection rates have decreased with the use of antibiotic-coated implants and other enhancements, the risk of infection is still considered a serious concern in penile implant revision surgeries.

AIM

To review the literature for advances made in inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) revision surgery and organisms found at the time of revision, the significance of biofilm in prosthetic infection, and the bacteriology of infection.

METHODS

PubMed was reviewed for articles spanning the past three decades that discussed micro-organisms and biofilm in relation to penile implant revision surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All articles were reviewed for evidence of bacteria found at revision IPP surgeries and any improvements made in surgical techniques and prosthesis enhancements.

RESULTS

During the period examined, several improvements have lowered the rate of infection in penile implant surgery: notably, antibiotic-coated IPPs, revision washout, and alcohol-based skin preparations. The biofilm composition on clinically uninfected and infected IPPs appears to have changed over time. The abundance of staphylococcal species-particularly coagulase-negative organisms-in positive cultures has decreased in infected implants, and clinically uninfected implants also have shown a decrease in the proportion of staphylococcal species. Conversely, other isolates such as fungi, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus species have increased in clinically uninfected and infected implants, and there has been an overall increase in unique isolates that form the biofilm.

CONCLUSION

A multitude of enhancements has decreased the presence of micro-organisms and the subsequent formation of biofilm. Nevertheless, the formation of biofilm on penile implants has been noted more frequently in the past decade, and the microbial composition of biofilms seems to be changing. Dawn LE, Henry GD, Tan GK, Wilson SK. Biofilm and Infectious Agents Present at the Time of Penile Prosthesis Revision Surgery: Times Are a Changing. Sex Med Rev 2017;5:236-243.

Penile Prosthesis Surgery: Current Recommendations From the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine

INTRODUCTION

Penile prosthesis implantation has emerged as a definitive treatment to restore sexual function to the motivated man with erectile dysfunction. Substantial improvements in the design of inflatable devices have been made since they first became available more than four decades ago.

AIM

To review the history of the penile prosthesis, the indications, preoperative evaluation, and patient and partner satisfaction. The current approaches to addressing intra- and postoperative complications, provide an understanding of prosthesis infection, and placement of these devices will be reviewed.

METHODS

A committee of worldwide experts in this field was assembled during the 2015 International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM) and performed a systematic review of the peer-reviewed published medical literature pertaining to penile prosthesis. Particular attention was given to higher level trials when available. Recommendations are based upon the Oxford Criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Unfortunately there is limited level 1 and 2 evidence, and where expert opinion was utilized, the decision was unanimous within the committee with a goal of presenting a clinically relevant guideline pertaining to penile prostheses.

RESULTS

Penile prosthesis has undergone an evolution over the past 40 years resulting in a more effective and reliable treatment for advanced erectile dysfunction not responding to less invasive methods including oral treatment with PDE5 inhibitors, vacuum erection device, and intracorporal injection therapy. It should be considered an appropriate treatment option for the man who wishes to restore erectile function and who understands the potential risk of mechanical failure and infection, both of which are less common now as a result of improvements made in device design as well as surgical protocols adhered to in the operating room. Patients must be clearly informed of the risks associated with penile prosthesis including mechanical failure, infection, shortening of the penis, change in sensation and configuration of the penis, as well as injury to local structures. Intraoperative complications are unusual but do occur and can usually be addressed intraoperatively to allow placement of the device at the time of initial surgery. Postoperative complications may also be addressed when they occur but may require more advanced reconstructive surgical techniques. Men with Peyronie's disease, corporal fibrosis due to infection, trauma, prior prosthesis explantation, priapism, and men who have undergone construction of a neophallus may require additional advanced maneuvers to obtain optimum results with a penile prosthesis.

CONCLUSION

Penile prosthesis remains as an important, viable, and effective treatment for male erectile dysfunction that does not respond to other less invasive approaches or when these approaches are contraindicated or not acceptable to the patient. These devices provide the patient with the ability to engage in penetrative sexual activity without interfering with urination, ejaculation, sensation, or orgasm. Although mechanical failure can occur, the current devices are more reliable as a result of design modifications. Infection remains the most dreaded complication but since the introduction of antibiotic and hydrophilic coatings, infection is less common. Overall, patient and partner satisfaction appear to be reasonably high when a penile prosthesis is used to restore erectile function.