World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 7, pp 1167–1174 | Cite as

Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis

  • Pietro Grande
  • Gabriele Antonini
  • Cristiano Cristini
  • Ettore De Berardinis
  • Antonio Gatto
  • Giovanni Di Lascio
  • Andrea Lemma
  • Giuseppe Gentile
  • Giovanni Battista Di Pierro
Original Article



To compare perioperative results, safety and efficacy profile in patients receiving inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) via penoscrotal (PS) or minimally invasive infrapubic (MII) approach for erectile dysfunction.


A matched-pair analysis was performed including 42 patients undergoing IPP implantation via PS (n = 21) or MII (n = 21) between 2011 and 2016. Clinical and surgical data were prospectively collected. Patients’ and partners’ outcomes were assessed by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) and Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaires.


Mean (SD) operative time was 128 (40.6) min in group PS and 91 (43.0) min in group MII (p = 0.041). Complications occurred in 3/21 (14%) and 2/21 (10%) patients in groups PS and MII (p = 0.832). Overall, no differences were observed concerning the device utilisation (p = 0.275). However, in group MII 4/21 (19%) patients were able to resume sexual activity prior to 4 postoperative weeks, while in group PS no patient was (p = 0.012). Mean (SD) scores for questionnaires were similar between groups PS and MII: IIEF [20.9 (7.3) vs. 20.7 (4.8); p = 0.132], patient EDITS [76.0 (25.6) vs. 74.7 (20.8); p = 0.256] and partner EDITS [72.5 (29.1) vs. 73.1 (21.4); p = 0.114]. Similarly, QoLSPP showed comparable results among the groups PS and MII: functional domain [3.9 (1.4) vs. 4.0 (1.2); p = 0.390], personal [4.0 (1.2) vs. 4.1 (1.0); p = 0.512], relational [3.7 (1.5) vs. 3.9 (1.2); p = 0.462] and social [4.0 (1.2) vs. 3.9 (1.2); p = 0.766].


PS and MII demonstrated to be safe and efficient techniques, leading to high level of both patients and partners satisfaction. Additionally, the minimally invasive infrapubic approach showed a shorter operative time and a tendency for a faster return to sexual activity.


Erectile dysfunction Inflatable penile prosthesis Penoscrotal approach Minimally invasive infrapubic approach 



Erectile dysfunction


Inflatable penile prosthesis


Penoscrotal approach


Minimally invasive infrapubic approach


Authors’ contributions

PG, GA: protocol/project development; GDL, AL, AG, GG: data collection or management; GBDP: data analysis; PG, EDB, CC, GBDP: manuscript writing/editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

We disclose any conflict of interest such as consultancies, stock ownership or other equity interests, patents received and/or pending, or any commercial relationship which might be in any way considered related to the submitted article. All authors have made a significant contribution to the findings and methods in the paper and have read and approved the final draft. Hospital Ethics Committee approval was obtained and it conforms to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients had given written informed consent and anonymity was preserved. The work has not already been published and has not been submitted simultaneously to any other journal.


The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Hatzimouratidis K, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Moncada I, Salonia A et al (2014) Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction. Eur Assoc Urol.
  2. 2.
    Levine LA, Becher E, Bella A, Brant W, Kohler T, Martinez-salamanca JI et al (2016) Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. J Sex Med 13:489–518. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kramer A, Chason J (2010) Residents at the University of Maryland Medical System provide insight to learning infrapubic approach for IPP surgery: relative benefits but novel challenges exposed in first 15 cases. J Sex Med 7:1298–1305. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perito PE (2008) Minimally invasive infrapubic inflatable penile implant. J Sex Med 5:27–30. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trost LW, Boonjindasup AG, Hellstrom WJG (2015) Comparison of infrapubic versus transcrotal approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institution report. Int J Impot Res 27:86–89. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garber BB, Marcus SM (1998) Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection? Urology 52:291–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Candela JV, Hellstrom WJ (1996) Three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a comparison of the penoscrotal and infrapubic surgical approaches. J Louisiana State Med Soc Off Organ Louisiana State Med Soc 148:296–301Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scarzella GI (1989) Improved technique for implanting AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis using transverse scrotal approach. Urology 34:388–389. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolf JS, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, Hollenbeck BK, Pearle MS, Schaeffer AJ et al (2008) Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol 179:1379–1390. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karpman E, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Henry G, Khera M, Morey AF (2013) Current opinions on alternative reservoir placement for inflatable penile prosthesis among members of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America. J Sex Med 10:2115–2120. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smaldone MC, Cannon GM, Benoit RM (2006) Subcutaneous reservoir placement during penile prosthesis implantation. Can J Urol 13:3351–3352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perito PE, Wilson SK (2011) Traditional (retroperitoneal) and abdominal wall (ectopic) reservoir placement. J Sex Med 8:656–659. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knoll LD, Henry G, Culkin D, Ohl DA, Otheguy J, Shabsigh R et al (2009) Physician and patient satisfaction with the new AMS 700 momentary squeeze inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med 6:1773–1778. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, Levine F, Burnett AL, Mcvary K et al (1999) EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology 53:793–799. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caraceni E, Utizi L (2014) A questionnaire for the evaluation of quality of life after penile prosthesis implant: quality of life and sexuality with penile prosthesis (QoLSPP): to what extent does the implant affect the patient’s life? J Sex Med 11:1005–1012. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rhoden EL, Telöken C, Sogari PR, Souto CAV (2002) The use of the simplified International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool to study the prevalence of erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 14:245–250. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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. J Urol 164:376–380. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brinkman MJ, Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delkii J, Denny G, Young M et al (2005) A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses for satisfaction. J Urol 174:253–257. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henry GD, Brinkman MJ, Mead SF, Delk JR, Cleves MA, Jennermann C et al (2012) A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses: assessment of timing and frequency of intercourse and analysis of implant durability. J Sex Med 9:1715–1721. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chiang H-S, Wu C, Wen T-C (2000) 10 years of experience with penile prosthesis implantation in Taiwanese patients. J Urol 163:476–480. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ohl DA, Brock G, Ralph D, Bogache W, Jones L, Munarriz R et al (2012) 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 9:2467–2474. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd (1995) Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol 153:659–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldstein I, Newman L, Baum N, Brooks M, Chaikin L, Goldberg K et al (1997) Safety and efficacy outcome of mentor alpha-1 inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for impotence treatment. J Urol 157:833–839. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carvalheira A, Santana R, Pereira NM (2015) Why are men satisfied or dissatisfied with penile implants? A mixed method study on satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med 12:2474–2480. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tefilli MV, Dubocq F, Rajpurkar A, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, Barton C et al (1998) Assessment of psychosexual adjustment after insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 52:1106–1112. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vakalopoulos I, Kampantais S, Ioannidis S, Laskaridis L, Dimopoulos P, Toutziaris C et al (2013) High patient satisfaction after inflatable penile prostheses implantation correlates with female partner satisfaction. J Sex Med 10:2774–2781. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mulhall JP, Ahmed A, Branch J, Parker M (2003) Serial assessment of efficacy and satisfaction profiles following penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol 169:1429–1433. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rajpurkar A, Dhabuwala CB (2003) Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice. J Urol 170:159–163. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carson CC, Levine LA (2014) Outcomes of surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease. BJU Int 113:704–713. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrical and Gynaecological Sciences and Urological Sciences‘Sapienza’ University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.CIC-Fondazione Policlinico GemelliRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations