Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Pumpology”: Evolution of the Penile Implant Pump and What Is on the Horizon

  • Male and Female Surgical Interventions (A Baumgarten, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Sexual Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

We aim to summarize the evolution of the penile implant pump in the last five decades and the recent technical advancements from the leading companies.

Recent Findings

Numerous modifications of the inflatable penile prosthesis and its pump apparatus have been made since the first modern device was introduced in 1973. These evolutions were largely spurred by pump malfunction, infection issues, new surgical techniques, and patient satisfaction. Recent promising innovations from leading companies, including wireless operation and a nonhydraulic penile prosthesis prototype, could potentially revolutionize the market in the next decade.

Summary

Practicing urologists stand to benefit from familiarity with the pump’s evolution and an understanding of which components have undergone innovative iterations. This knowledge, while also remaining abreast of the highest standards of current prosthetic practice, will serve to help prevent prosthetic issues and continue to drive advancements in design and improved patient satisfaction.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Burnett AL, Nehra A, Breau RH, et al. Erectile dysfunction: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2018;200:633.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Small MP, Carrion HM. Penile prosthesis: new implant for management of impotence. J Fla Med Assoc. 1975;62(10):21–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mulcahy JJ. The development of modern penile implants. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(2):177–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carson, C. C. Urologic prostheses | SpringerLink. SpringerLink, link.springer.com, 0 0 2002, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-59259-096-4.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2022.

  5. Hakky TS, Wang R, Henry GD. The evolution of the inflatable penile prosthetic device and surgical innovations with anatomical considerations. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15(6):410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-014-0410-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dinerman BF, Telis L, Eid JF. New advancements in inflatable penile prosthesis. Sex Med Rev. 2021;9(3):507–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, Alzweri LM, Hellstrom WJG. Penile prosthesis complications: planning, prevention, and decision making. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7(2):349–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loeffler RA, Sayegh ES. Perforated acrylic implants in management of organic impotence. J Urol. 1960;84:559–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Beheri GE. Surgical treatment of impotence. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1966;38(2):92–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lash H. Silicone implant for impotence. J Urol. 1968;100(5):709–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. F. Brantley Scott - Boston Scientific. www.AmericanMedicalSystems.com, Apr. 2013, https://www.bostonscientific.com/content/dam/bostonscientific/uro-wh/general/ams/Resources/AMSUSED-00777_700_40th_Timeline.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2022.

  12. 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 

  13. Small MP, Carrion HM, Gordon JA. Small-Carrion penile prosthesis. New implant for management of impotence. Urology. 1975;5(4):479–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scott FB, Byrd GJ, Karacan I, Olsson P, Beutler LE, Attia SL. Erectile impotence treated with an implantable, inflatable prosthesis. Five years of clinical experience. JAMA. 1979;241(24):2609–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Furlow WL. Inflatable penile prosthesis: Mayo Clinic experience with 175 patients. Urology. 1979;13(2):166–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Woodworth BE, Carson CC, Webster GD. Inflatable penile prosthesis: effect of device modification on functional longevity. Urology. 1991;38(6):533–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fein RL. Cylinder problems with AMS 700 inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1988;31(4):305–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Malloy TR, Wein AJ, Carpiniello VL. Reliability of AMS M700 inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1986;28(5):385–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Furlow WL, Motley RC. The inflatable penile prosthesis: clinical experience with a new controlled expansion cylinder. J Urol. 1988;139(5):945–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Quesada ET, Light JK. The AMS 700 inflatable penile prosthesis: long-term experience with the controlled expansion cylinders. J Urol. 1993;149(1):46–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mulcahy JJ. The Hydroflex self-contained inflatable prosthesis: experience with 100 patients. J Urol. 1988;140(6):1422–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kabalin JN, Kuo JC. Long-term followup of and patient satisfaction with the Dynaflex self-contained inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1997;158(2):456–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Anafarta K, Yaman O, Aydos K. Clinical experience with Dynaflex penile prostheses in 120 patients. Urology. 1998;52(6):1098–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

  25. Holloway FB, Farah RN. Intermediate term assessment of the reliability, function and patient satisfaction with the AMS700 Ultrex penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1997;157(5):1687–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Liberman SN, Gomella LG, Hirsch IH. Experience with the Ultrex and Ultrex Plus inflatable penile prosthesis: new implantation techniques and surgical outcome. Int J Impot Res. 1998;10(3):175–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol. 2001;166(3):932–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, Levine LA. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2007;177(1):262–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Carson CC 3rd. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1611–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000118245.66976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fernandez-Crespo RE, Buscaino K, Carrion R. “Pumpology”: the realistic issues associated with pump placement in prosthetic surgery. Curr Urol Rep. 2021;22(2):10.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Trost L. Future considerations in prosthetic urology. Asian J Androl. 2020;22(1):70-5.

  33. Merrill DC. Clinical experience with Mentor inflatable penile prosthesis in 206 patients. Urology. 1986;28(3):185–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dubocq F, Tefilli MV, Gheiler EL, Li H, Dhabuwala CB. Long-term mechanical reliability of multicomponent inflatable penile prosthesis: comparison of device survival. Urology. 1998;52(2):277–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR 2nd. Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced Mentor Alpha I penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1999;162(3 Pt 1):715–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Otero JR, Cruz CR, Gómez BG, Geli JS, Polo JM, Castañé ER, Antolín AR. Comparison of the patient and partner satisfaction with 700CX and Titan penile prostheses. Asian journal of andrology. 2017;19(3):321–5. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.172822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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 

  38. Coloplast. Coloplast. Ostomy, Continence, Interventional Urology, Wound & Skin Care Products. 2022. https://www.coloplast.us/titan-touch-en-us.aspx#section=key-benefit_302. Accessed 13 June 2022.

  39. 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 

  40. Cayan S, Asci R, Efesoy O, Bolat MS, Akbay E, Yaman O. Comparison of long-term results and couples’ satisfaction with penile implant types and brands: lessons learned from 883 patients with erectile dysfunction who underwent penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med. 2019;16(7):1092–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Habous M, Tal R, Tealab A, Aziz M, Sherif H, Mahmoud S, et al. Predictors of satisfaction in men after penile implant surgery. J Sex Med. 2018;15(8):1180–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Habashy, Engy, and Tobias Kohler. V12–08: SST and the Frozen Pump. Attend networking events and meet the right people with the Swapcard Event App, 16 May 2022, https://app.swapcard.com/event/2022-aua-annual-meeting-new-orleans/planning/UGxhbm5pbmdfODgwNjMx. Accessed 13 June 2022.

  43. Colombo F, Gentile G, Vagnoni V, Fiorillo A, Piazza P, Sartorio F, et al. Initial experience of a single center with the use of ZSI 475 penile prosthesis. Asian J Urol. 2021;8(2):176–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Verla W, Goedertier W, Lumen N, Spinoit AF, Waterloos M, Waterschoot M, et al. Implantation of the ZSI 475 FTM erectile device after phalloplasty: a prospective analysis of surgical outcomes. J Sex Med. 2021;18(3):615–22.

  45. Osmonov D, Ragheb A. The Rigicon Infla10® IPP implantation via the penoscrotal and subcoronal approaches: the UKSH experience. VJPU. 2021. https://www.vjpu-issm.info/component/content/article/17-abstracts/147-the-rigicon-infla10-ipp-implantation-via-the-penoscrotal-and-subcoronal-approaches-the-uksh-experience?Itemid=101. Accessed 13 June 2022.

  46. Rigicon@ Inflal 00 three-piece penile prosthesis instructions for use. Rigicon, INC. 2805 Veterans Highway Suite 5, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 United States of America +1 (888) 202–9790 - www.rigicon.com Rigicon@ Innovative Urological Solutions.

  47. Le B, McVary K, McKenna K, Colombo A. A novel thermal-activated shape memory penile prosthesis: comparative mechanical testing. Urology. 2017;99:136–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Le BV, McVary KT, McKenna K, Colombo A. Use of magnetic induction to activate a “touchless” shape memory alloy implantable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2019;16(4):596-601.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Boston Scientific Men’s Health, Coloplast®, Rigicon® Inc., and Zephyr Surgical Implants® for sharing historical data and images.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sexual Medicine-Department of Urology, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, 12901 Bruce B Downs Boulevard, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA

    Jose Quesada-Olarte, Raul Fernandez-Crespo, Justin Parker & Rafael E. Carrion

  2. Department of Urology, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Jose Quesada-Olarte, David Nelwan, Raul Fernandez-Crespo, Justin Parker & Rafael E. Carrion

Authors
  1. Jose Quesada-Olarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Nelwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raul Fernandez-Crespo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Justin Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rafael E. Carrion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose Quesada-Olarte.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

Dr. Rafael E. Carrion is a consultant for Coloplast, Boston Scientific, Rigicon, and Endo Pharmaceutical.

Dr. Justin Parker is a consultant for Coloplast and a speaker for Baxter.

The rest of the authors have no competing interests to disclose.

Human and Animal Rights Statements

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 Male and Female Surgical Interventions

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quesada-Olarte, J., Nelwan, D., Fernandez-Crespo, R. et al. “Pumpology”: Evolution of the Penile Implant Pump and What Is on the Horizon. Curr Sex Health Rep 14, 150–157 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-022-00348-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-022-00348-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation