Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Management of intraoperative penile implant complications

  • Published:
Current Sexual Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis has the highest patient satisfaction and lowest mechanical revision rate of any medically implanted device. Revisions of inflatable penile prostheses are more often required for nonmechanical reasons than for device failure. Intraoperative complications of penile implant placement can be distressing for the prosthetic surgeon, but with recognition of the dilemma, most of these complications can be navigated with excellent postoperative results. More than half of these intraoperative complications occur during dilatation of the corpora cavernosa. Dilation of the corpora cavernosa is a critical step in the placement of any type of penile prosthesis and can be especially difficult in a patient with corporal fibrosis. This review article summarizes the techniques, outcomes, and new developments in the field of complicated penile prosthetic surgery.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Gee WF: A history of surgical treatment of impotence. Urology 1975, 5:401–405.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Loeffler RA, Sayegh ES: Perforated acrylic implants in management of organic impotence. J Urol 1960, 84:559–561.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearman RO: Treatment of organic impotence by implantation of a penile prosthesis. J Urol 1967, 97:716–719.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW: Management of erectile impotence: use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology 1973, 2:80–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tiefer L, Pedersen B, Melman A: Psychological follow-up of penile prosthesis implant patients and partners. J Sex Marital Ther 1988, 14:184–201.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kearse WS Jr, Sago AL, Peretsman SJ, et al.: Report of a multicenter clinical evaluation of the Dura-II penile prosthesis. J Urol 1996, 155:1613–1616.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mulhall JP, Ahmed A, Branch J, Parker M: Serial assessment of efficacy and satisfaction profiles following penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol 2003, 169:1429–1433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McLaren RH, Barrett DM: Patient and partner satisfaction with the AMS 700 penile prosthesis. J Urol 1992, 147:62–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewis RW: Long-term results of penile prosthetic implants. Urol Clin North Am 1995, 22:847–856.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sexton WJ, Benedict JF, Jarow JP: Comparison of long-term outcomes of penile prostheses and intracavernosal injection therapy. J Urol 1998, 159:811–815.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jarow JP, Nana-Sinkam P, Sabbagh M, Eskew A: Outcome analysis of goal directed therapy for impotence. J Urol 1996, 155:1609–1612.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Whalen RK, Merrill DC: Patient satisfaction with Mentor inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 1991, 37:531–539.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rajpurkar A, Dhabuwala CB: 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 2003, 170:159–163.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE: Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700 CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long term, multicenter study. J Urol 2000, 164:376–380. This study is a large (over 350 patients), multicenter, long-term evaluation of patient satisfaction and mechanical reliability.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR II, et al.: Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol 2004, 172:153–156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ: The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol 1996, 155:155–157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR II, et al.: Revision washout reduces penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol 2005, 173:89–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN: Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology 2003, 62:918–921.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Quesada ET, Light JK: The AMS 700 inflatable penile prosthesis: long-term experience with the controlled expansion cylinders. J Urol 1993, 149:46–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilson SK, Henry GD: Penoscrotal approach for the threepiece and two-piece hydraulic implants. In Surgical Management of Erectile Dysfunction. Edited by Mulcahy JJ. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2002:169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eid JF: Multi-component inflatable penile prostheses: keys to success. Cont Urol 2003, 15:2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Abouassaly R, Angermeier KW, Montague DK: Risk of infection with use of an antibiotic coated penile prosthesis at the time of device replacement for mechanical failure. J Urol 2004, 171:238.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Carbone DJ Jr, Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, et al.: Management of severe corporeal fibrosis with implantation of prosthesis via a transverse scrotal approach. J Urol 1998, 159:125–127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mooreville M, Adrian S, Delk JR 2nd, Wilson SK: Implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis in patients with severe corporeal fibrosis: introduction of a new penile cavernotome. J Urol 1999, 162:2054–2057.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Montorsi F, Salonia A, Maga T, et al.: Reconfiguration of the severely fibrotic penis with a penile implant. J Urol 2001, 166:1782–1786.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Herschorn S: Penile implant success in patients with corporal fibrosis using multiple incisions and minimal scar tissue excision. Urology 2000, 55:299–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rajpurkar A, Li H, Dhabuwala CB: Penile implant success in patients with corporal fibrosis using multiple incisions and minimal scar tissue excision. Urology 1999, 54:145–147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Knoll LD, Fisher J, Benson RC Jr, et al.: Treatment of penile fibrosis with prosthetic implantation and flap advancement with tissue debulking. J Urol 1996 156(Suppl 2, Pt 1):394–397.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. George VK, Shah GS, Mills R, Dhabuwala CB: The management of extensive penile fibrosis: a new technique of ‘minimal scar-tissue excision’. Br J Urol 1996, 77:282–284.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Knoll LD: Use of penile prosthetic implants in patients with penile fibrosis. Urol Clin North Am 1995, 22:857–863.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Herschorn S, Ordorica RC: Penile prosthesis insertion with corporeal reconstruction with synthetic vascular graft material. J Urol 1995, 154:80–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Knoll LD, Furlow WL, Benson RC Jr, Bilhartz DL: Management of nondilatable cavernous fibrosis with the use of a downsized inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol 1995, 153:366–367.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kabalin JN: Corporeal fibrosis as a result of priapism prohibiting function of self-contained inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 1994, 43:401–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Knoll LD, Furlow WL: Corporeal reconstruction and prosthetic implantation for impotence associated with non-dilatable corporeal cavernosal fibrosis. Acta Urol Belg 1992, 60:15–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mireku-Boateng A, Jackson AG: Penile prosthesis in the management of priapism. Urol Int 1989, 44:247–248.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wilson SK, Henry GD, Delk JR II: Upsizing of penile implant cylinders in patients with corporal fibrosis. J Urol 2004, 171:237–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Montague DK, Angermeier KW: Corporal excavation: a new technique for penile prosthesis implantation in men with severe corporal fibrosis. J Sex Med 2004, 1(Suppl 1):MP68-MP82.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Carson CC, Noh CH: Distal penile prosthesis extrusion: treatment with distal corporoplasty or Gortex windsock reinforcement. Int J Impot Res 2002, 14:81–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mulcahy JJ: Distal corporoplasty for lateral extrusion of penile prosthesis cylinders. J Urol 1999, 161:193–195.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hellstrom WJG, Reddy S: Application of pericardial graft in the surgical management of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 2000, 163:1445–1447.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Palese MA, Burnett AL: Corporoplasty using pericardium allograft (Tutoplast) with complex penile prosthesis surgery. Urology 2001, 58:1049–1052.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wilson SK, Henry GD, Delk JR II, 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(Suppl 4, Pt 1):1475–1478. This study describes ectopic reservoir placement in greater detail. Ectopic reservoir placement is a safe alternative for men with a scarred retropubic space.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mulcahy JJ: Update: penile prostheses. Comp Urol 1994, 10:15.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wilson SK, Sedeghi-Nejad H, Cleves MA, Delk JR: Reservoir complications of 3-piece implants. Int J Imp Res 2000, 12(Suppl 3):567.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Munoz JJ, Ellsworth PJ: The retained penile prosthesis reservoir: a risk. Urology 2000, 55:949.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rajpurkar A, Bianco FF Jr, Al-Omar O, et al.: Fate of the retained reservoir after replacement of 3-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol 2004, 172:664–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Regional Urology, 255 Bert Kouns-Industrial Loop, 71106, Shreveport, LA, USA

    Gerard D. Henry MD

Authors
  1. Gerard D. Henry MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Henry, G.D. Management of intraoperative penile implant complications. Current Sexual Health Reports 2, 64–68 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-005-0006-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-005-0006-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation