Skip to main content

Reservoir Placement Considerations During Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery


Purpose of Review

To discuss emerging alternative strategies for reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis surgery.

Recent Findings

Innovations in penile prosthesis design have facilitated the development of various alternative approaches for reservoir placement. Avoiding the space of Retzius is particularly appealing in patients with a history of pelvic surgery and/or radiation. The high submuscular technique utilizes a low-profile reservoir in combination with the implant’s lockout valve to allow for safe placement in the potential space between the anterior abdominal wall musculature and the transversalis fascia, far cephalad from the external inguinal ring and without the need for a counter-incision. Multiple recent publications have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the high submuscular technique.


High submuscular inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir placement is a safe and effective alternative to placement within the space of Retzius.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


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

  1. 1.

    Perito P, Wilson S. The history of nontraditional or ectopic placement of reservoirs in prosthetic urology. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(2):190–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Karpman E, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Henry G, Khera M, Morey AF. Current opinions on alternative reservoir placement for inflatable penile prosthesis among members of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America. J Sex Med. 2013;10(8):2115–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Pearce SM, Pariser JJ, Karrison T, Patel SG, Eggener SE. Comparison of perioperative and early oncologic outcomes between open and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in a contemporary population based cohort. J Urol. 2016;196(1):76–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sadeghi-Nejad H, Munarriz R, Shah N. Intra-abdominal reservoir placement during penile prosthesis surgery in post-robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy patients: a case report and practical considerations. J Sex Med. 2011;8(5):1547–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wilson SK, Henry GD, Delk JR 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 Pt 1):1475–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Chung PH, Morey AF, Tausch TJ, Simhan J, Scott JF. High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs: 2-year experience and patient-reported outcomes. Urology. 2014;84(6):1535–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Garber BB, Bickell M. Subcutaneous placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs. Urology. 2016;88:93–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wilson SK, Delk JR. 2nd. Ectopic placement of AMS 800 urinary control system pressure-regulating balloon. Urology. 2005;65(1):167–70.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    •• Pagliara TJ, Viers BR, Scott J, Morey AF. Extended experience with high submuscular placement of urological prosthetic balloons and reservoirs: refined technique for optimal outcomes. Urology Practice. 2018;5(4):293–8. Long-term results of HSM IPP reservoir placement from the first group to describe the HSM technique.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Gross MS, Stember DS, Garber BB, Perito PE. A retrospective analysis of risk factors for IPP reservoir entry into the peritoneum after abdominal wall placement. Int J Impot Res. 2017;29(5):215–8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Karpman E, Brant WO, Kansas B, Bella AJ, Jones LA, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    • Ziegelmann MJ, Viers BR, Lomas DJ, Westerman ME, Trost LW. Ectopic penile prosthesis reservoir placement: an anatomic cadaver model of the high submuscular technique. J Sex Med. 2016;13(9):1425–31. Cadaveric study which calls into question as to whether reservoirs intended for the HSM space ultimately reside there.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Henry G, Hsiao W, Karpman E, Bella AJ, Carrion R, Jones L, et al. A guide for inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir placement: pertinent anatomical measurements of the retropubic space. J Sex Med. 2014;11(1):273–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Cefalu CA, Deng X, Zhao LC, Scott JF, Mehta S, Morey AF. Safety of the “drain and retain” option for defunctionalized urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs during artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery: 5-year experience. Urology. 2013;82(6):1436–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kohler TS, Benson A, Ost L, Wilson SK, Brant WO. Intentionally retained pressure-regulating balloon in artificial urinary sphincter revision. J Sex Med. 2013;10(10):2566–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hsi RS, Hotaling JM, Spencer ES, Bollyky PL, Walsh TJ. Isolated infection of a decommissioned penile prosthesis reservoir with Actinomyces neuii. J Sex Med. 2011;8(3):923–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    • Clavell Hernandez J, Trost L, Kohler T, Ring J, Traweek R, Alom M, et al. Emerging complications following alternative reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a 5-year multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2018. Large, multi-institutional series comparing conventional versus alternative IPP reservoir placement techniques.

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven J. Hudak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict 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.


The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Brooke Army Medical Center, the U.S. Army Medical Department, the U.S. Army Office of the Surgeon General, the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

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 Surgery

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hudak, S.J. Reservoir Placement Considerations During Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery. Curr Urol Rep 20, 8 (2019).

Download citation


  • Inflatable penile prosthesis
  • Reservoir
  • Ectopic
  • High submuscular