Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Innovating Incrementally: Development of the Modern Inflatable Penile Prosthesis

  • Surgery (J Simhan, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) was introduced in 1973. Since that time, the fundamental design of the IPP has not changed, but numerous improvements to the device, surgery, and peri-operative management have resulted in a modern IPP with excellent reliability, infection control, safety profile, and user experience.

Recent Findings

We describe important modifications to the IPP and review available data assessing the impact of these changes. We also discuss possible changes to the IPP that would result in continued improvement.

Summary

Since its introduction in 1973, changes to the penile prosthesis have resulted in significant improvements in reliability, infection control, safety, and user experience. Design changes are anticipated to continue, resulting in a better and more versatile penile prosthesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Fishman IJ, Scott FB, Light JK. Experience with inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1984;23(5):86–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2(1):80–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson SK, Warman GE, Lange JL. Eleven years of experience with the inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1988;139(5):951–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lewis RW. Long-term results of penile prosthetic implants. Urol Clin N Am. 1995;22(4):847–56.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Henry GD. Historical review of penile prosthesis design and surgical techniques: part 1 of a three-part review series on penile prosthetic surgery. J Sex Med. 2009;6(3):675–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Enickas M, Kessler R, Kabalin JN. Long-term experience with controlled expansion cylinders in the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis and comparison with earlier versions of the Scott inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1994;44(3):400–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Ingleright BJ, Montague DK. Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700 series inflatable penile prostheses: comparison of CX/CXM and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol. 1997;158(4):1400–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Milbank AJ, et al. Mechanical failure of the American Medical Systems Ultrex inflatable penile prosthesis: before and after 1993 structural modification. J Urol. 2002;167(6):2502–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Enemchukwu EA, Kaufman MR, Whittam BM, Milam DF. Comparative revision rates of inflatable penile prostheses using woven Dacron® fabric cylinders. J Urol. 2013;190(6):2189–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Salem EA, Wilson SK, Neeb A, Delk JR, Cleves MA. Mechanical reliability of AMS 700 CX improved by parylene coating. J Sex Med. 2009;6(9):2615–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR II. Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced mentor* Alpha I penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1999;162(3):715–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ohl DA, Brock G, Ralph D, Bogache W, Jones LR, Munarriz R, et al. Prospective evaluation of patient satisfaction, and surgeon and patient trainer assessment of the coloplast titan one touch release three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2012;9(9):2467–74.

  13. Lindeborg L, Fode M, Fahrenkrug L, Sønksen J. Satisfaction and complications with the Titan® one-touch release penile implant. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2014;48(1):105–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Rourke TK Jr, et al. Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(Suppl 5):S832–48.

  15. Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR II. Long-term followup of treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2001;165(3):825–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. • Tausch TJ, et al. Intraoperative decision-making for precise penile straightening during inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Urology. 2015;86(5):1048–52. This is one center’s approach to managing a patient with Peyronie’s Disease using a combination of minimally invasive approaches.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilson SK, Delk JR II. A new treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1994;152(4):1121–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chung E, Solomon M, Deyoung L, Brock GB. Comparison between AMS 700™ CX and Coloplast™ Titan inflatable penile prosthesis for Peyronie’s disease treatment and remodeling: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med. 2013;10(11):2855–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ. The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1996;155(1):155–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mandava SH, Serefoglu EC, Freier MT, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJG. Infection retardant coated inflatable penile prostheses decrease the incidence of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2012;188(5):1855–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Carson CC III. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1611–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wolter CE, Hellstrom WJ. The hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. J Sex Med. 2004;1(2):221–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dhabuwala C, Sheth S, Zamzow B. Infection rates of rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan Coloplast penile implants. Comparison with Inhibizone-impregnated AMS penile implants. J Sex Med. 2011;8(1):315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Delk J, Knoll LD, McMurray J, Shore N, Wilson S. Early experience with the American Medical Systems new tactile pump: results of a multicenter study. J Sex Med. 2005;2(2):266–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Knoll LD, Henry G, Culkin D, Ohl DA, Otheguy J, Shabsigh R, et al. SURGERY: physician and patient satisfaction with the new AMS 700 Momentary Squeeze inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2009;6(6):1773–8.

  26. Shaw T, Garber BB. Coloplast Titan inflatable penile prosthesis with one-touch release pump: review of 100 cases and comparison with genesis pump. J Sex Med. 2011;8(1):310–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Garber BB, Khurgin JL, Stember DS, Perito PE. Pseudo-malfunction of the Coloplast Titan inflatable penile prosthesis one-touch release pump. Urology. 2014;84(4):857–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilson SK, Henry GD, Delk JR, Cleves MA. The mentor Alpha 1 penile prosthesis with reservoir lock-out valve: effective prevention of auto-inflation with improved capability for ectopic reservoir placement. J Urol. 2002;168(4):1475–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Karpman E, Brant WO, Kansas B, Bella AJ, Jones LRA, Eisenhart E, et al. Reservoir alternate surgical implantation technique: preliminary outcomes of initial PROPPER study of low profile or spherical reservoir implantation in submuscular location or traditional prevesical space. J Urol. 2015;193(1):239–44.

  30. Stember DS, Garber BB, Perito PE. Outcomes of abdominal wall reservoir placement in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a safe and efficacious alternative to the space of Retzius. J Sex Med. 2014;11(2):605–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Morey AF, Cefalu CA, Hudak SJ. High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs via transscrotal approach. J Sex Med. 2013;10(2):603–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. •• Pagliara T, et al. Extended experience with high submuscular placement of urological prosthetic balloons and reservoirs: refined technique for optimal outcomes. Urol Pract. 2018;5(4):293–8. High submuscular placement of an IPP reservoir is safe, effective, and easy to perform.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. • Kocjancic E, Iacovelli V. Penile prostheses. Clinics in Plastic Surgery. 2018. Excellent summary of penile prosthetics in transgender patients.

  34. •• Le B, et al. A novel thermal-activated shape memory penile prosthesis: comparative mechanical testing. Urology. 2017;99:136–41. A novel approach to the penile prosthesis.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. •• Chen J, et al. 891: A Novel Flexible Magnetic Penile Prosthesis. J Urol. 2004;171(4):236 A novel approach to the penile prosthesis.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Robles-Torres JI, et al. PD40-04 semiautomatic inflatable electronic penile implant prototype. J Urol. 2018;199(4):e804–5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 2105 Physician’s Office Building, 170 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Mark Ehlers, Benjamin McCormick, R. Matthew Coward & Bradley D. Figler

Authors
  1. Mark Ehlers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin McCormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Matthew Coward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bradley D. Figler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bradley D. Figler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Mark Ehlers, Benjamin McCormick, R. Matthew Coward, and Bradley D. Figler each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ehlers, M., McCormick, B., Coward, R.M. et al. Innovating Incrementally: Development of the Modern Inflatable Penile Prosthesis. Curr Urol Rep 20, 17 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-019-0880-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-019-0880-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation