» Articles » PMID: 28217449

Penile Prosthesis Implant: Scientific Advances and Technological Innovations over the Last Four Decades

Overview
Date 2017 Feb 21
PMID 28217449
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Despite introduction of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and intracavernosal vasoactive agents, penile prosthesis implant remains a relevant and desired option with sales of penile prostheses continue to stay high, as many men became refractory to medical therapy and/or seeking a more effective and permanent therapy. There are two types of penile prosthesis implants: inflatable and non-inflatable types, and the inflatable penile implants can be subdivided into single-, two- and three-piece devices. Non-inflatable penile prosthesis (non-IPP) may be referred to as semi-rigid rod or malleable prosthesis. IPP is considered a superior option to malleable prosthesis as it produces penile rigidity and flaccidity that closely replicates a normal penile erectile function. Since the introduction of IPP by Scott in 1973, surgical landscape for penile prosthesis implantation has changed dramatically. Advances in prosthesis design, device technologies and surgical techniques have made penile prosthesis implant a more natural, durable and reliable device. The following article reviews the scientific advances and technological innovation in modern penile prosthesis implants over the last four decades.

Citing Articles

How to improve functional outcome of inflatable penile implant surgery? a narrative review.

Vural A, De Bruyn H, van Renterghem K Int J Impot Res. 2025; .

PMID: 39966533 DOI: 10.1038/s41443-025-01030-9.


Economic impact of reduced postoperative visits after inflatable penile prosthesis implantation.

Gill B, Shin Y, Durand K, Sun A, Babbar P, Rojanasarot S J Comp Eff Res. 2025; 14(3):e240204.

PMID: 39812079 PMC: 11864081. DOI: 10.57264/cer-2024-0204.


Twisting of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Tubing Leading to Device Malfunction and Required Explantation: A Rare Complication.

Sarver J, Emmer E, Benben A, Skalak M, Talley D, Abdelhady M Case Rep Urol. 2024; 2024:4446878.

PMID: 39444546 PMC: 11496575. DOI: 10.1155/2024/4446878.


A narrative review on synchronous concurrent versus delayed sequential surgery in the artificial urinary sphincter and penile prosthesis implantation.

Chung E Transl Androl Urol. 2024; 13(8):1650-1656.

PMID: 39280664 PMC: 11399055. DOI: 10.21037/tau-23-22.


MR imaging of penile pathology and prostheses.

Rajamohan N, Kapoor H, Khurana A, Nelson L, Ganesh H, Khatri G Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024; 50(1):305-318.

PMID: 39066812 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04417-2.


References
1.
Bergman R, HOWARD A, BARNES R . Plastic reconstruction of the penis. J Urol. 1948; 59(6):1174-86. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)69495-3. View

2.
Scott F, BRADLEY W, Timm G . Management of erectile impotence. Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973; 2(1):80-2. DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(73)90224-0. View

3.
Delk J, Knoll L, McMurray J, Shore N, Wilson S . Early experience with the American Medical Systems new tactile pump: results of a multicenter study. J Sex Med. 2006; 2(2):266-71. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20238.x. View

4.
Levine L, Estrada C, Morgentaler A . Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol. 2001; 166(3):932-7. View

5.
Jonas U, Jacobi G . Silicone-silver penile prosthesis: description, operative approach and results. J Urol. 1980; 123(6):865-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)56168-6. View