Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 1187–1196 | Cite as

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP): diagnosis of complications

  • Robert P. HartmanEmail author
  • Akira Kawashima
  • Naoki Takahashi
  • Andrew J. LeRoy
  • Bernard F. King
Pictorial Essay


Inflatable penile prostheses are a common treatment for erectile dysfunction that is unresponsive to less-invasive measures. Complications can arise at the time of the placement of the prosthesis or at a later date. Complications may be related to infection and/or mechanical failure of one or more of the prosthesis components including cylinder, reservoir, pump, and tubing. Mechanical failure includes kinking, migration, and aneurysmal dilation of the cylinder, erosion of the tunica albuginea of the corpora cavernosum by the cylinder, disconnection of the tubing, and migration of the reservoir. MRI of the entire components with the cylinders in both flaccid and inflated states is the best imaging modality available to image patients with suspected implant complications.


Erectile dysfunction Penile prosthesis Magnetic resonance imaging Complications 



Sonia Watson, PhD, assisted with editing the manuscript. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP): Diagnosis of Complications.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This was a retrospective study. For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.


  1. 1.
    Impotence–NIH Consensus Statement. (1992) NIH consensus development panel on impotence. Accessed 2 Nov 2015
  2. 2.
    Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW (1973) Management of erectile impotence. Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology 2:80–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Darouiche RO (2001) Device-associated infections: a macroproblem that starts with microadherence. Clin Infect Dis 33:1567–1572. doi: 10.1086/323130 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee DJ, Najari BB, Davison WL, et al. (2015) Trends in the utilization of penile prostheses in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in the United States. J Sex Med 12:1638–1645. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12921 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Selph JP, Carson CC 3rd (2011) Penile prosthesis infection: approaches to prevention and treatment. Urol Clin N Am 38:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hellstrom WJ (2003) History, epidemiology, and clinical presentation of Peyronie’s disease. Int J Impot Res 15(Suppl 5):S91–S92. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3901081 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Montague DK, Jarow JP, Broderick GA, et al. (2005) Chapter 1: the management of erectile dysfunction: an AUA update. J Urol 174:230–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wespes E, Amar E, Hatzichristou D, et al. (2006) EAU Guidelines on erectile dysfunction: an update. Eur Urol 49:806–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McPhail EF, Nehra A, Bruner BC, et al. (2011) MRI and its role in the evaluation and surgical decision making in patients with challenging IPP presentations: descriptions of MRI findings and algorithm for patient management. BJU Int 109:1848–1852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirkham AP, Illing RO, Minhas S, Minhas S, Allen C (2008) MR imaging of nonmalignant penile lesions. Radiographics 28:837–853. doi: 10.1148/rg.283075100 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thiel DD, Broderick GA, Bridges M (2003) Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating inflatable penile prosthesis malfunction and complaints. Int J Impot Res 15(Suppl 5):S155–S161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    La Rochelle JC, Levine LA (2007) Complications of benign adult penile and scrotal surgery. In: Loughlin KR (ed) Complications of urologic surgery and practice: diagnosis, prevention, and management. New York, NY: Informa Healthcare USA Inc, pp 213–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE (2000) Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. AMS 700CX Study Group. J Urol 164:376–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolter CE, Hellstrom WJ (2004) The hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. J Sex Med 1:221–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dhar NB, Angermeier KW, Montague DK (2006) Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700CX/CXM inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol 176:2599–2601 (discussion 2601). doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR 2nd (1999) Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced Mentor Alpha I penile prosthesis. J Urol 162:715–718CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moncada I, Hernandez C, Jara J, et al. (1998) Buckling of cylinders may cause prolonged penile pain after prosthesis implantation: a case control study using magnetic resonance imaging of the penis. J Urol 160:67–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith CP, Kraus SR, Boone TB (1998) Management of impending penile prosthesis erosion with a polytetrafluoroethylene distal wind sock graft. J Urol 160:2037–2040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mooreville M, Adrian S, Delk JR 2nd, Wilson SK (1999) Implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis in patients with severe corporeal fibrosis: introduction of a new penile cavernotome. J Urol 162:2054–2057CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sadeghi-Nejad H (2007) Penile prosthesis surgery: a review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med 4:296–309. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00434.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Stefani S, Simonato A, Capone M, et al. (1994) The benefit of glans fixation in prosthetic penile surgery. J Urol 152:1533–1534PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sadeghi-Nejad H, Sharma A, Irwin RJ, Wilson SK, Delk JR (2001) Reservoir herniation as a complication of three-piece penile prosthesis insertion. Urology 57:142–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nelson RP Jr (1988) Small bowel obstruction secondary to migration of an inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir: recognition and prevention. J Urol 139:1053–1054PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh I, Godec CJ (1992) Asynchronous erosion of inflatable penile prosthesis into small and large bowel. J Urol 147:709–710PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walther MM, O’Brien DP 3rd (1989) Re: small bowel obstruction secondary to migration of an inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir: recognition and prevention. J Urol 142:141–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brison D, Ilbeigi P, Sadeghi-Nejad H (2007) Reservoir repositioning and successful thrombectomy for deep venous thrombosis secondary to compression of pelvic veins by an inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir. J Sex Med 4:1185–1187. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00266.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations