Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 20:17 | Cite as

Innovating Incrementally: Development of the Modern Inflatable Penile Prosthesis

  • Mark Ehlers
  • Benjamin McCormick
  • R. Matthew Coward
  • Bradley D. FiglerEmail author
Surgery (J Simhan, Section Editor)
  • 45 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Surgery

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.

Keywords

Penile implant Penis prosthesis Prosthesis Penile Prostheses and implants 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

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.

References

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

  1. 1.
    Fishman IJ, Scott FB, Light JK. Experience with inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1984;23(5):86–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2(1):80–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson SK, Warman GE, Lange JL. Eleven years of experience with the inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1988;139(5):951–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewis RW. Long-term results of penile prosthetic implants. Urol Clin N Am. 1995;22(4):847–56.Google Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolter CE, Hellstrom WJ. The hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. J Sex Med. 2004;1(2):221–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    • Kocjancic E, Iacovelli V. Penile prostheses. Clinics in Plastic Surgery. 2018. Excellent summary of penile prosthetics in transgender patients. Google Scholar
  34. 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. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Robles-Torres JI, et al. PD40-04 semiautomatic inflatable electronic penile implant prototype. J Urol. 2018;199(4):e804–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Ehlers
    • 1
  • Benjamin McCormick
    • 1
  • R. Matthew Coward
    • 1
  • Bradley D. Figler
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.University of North Carolina-Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations