Skip to main content

Current Status for Semirigid Penile Prosthetic Devices

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The goal of this paper was to evaluate the current use of semirigid penile prosthesis (SRPP), surgical techniques for insertion of SRPP, and how to prevent and approach surgical complications.

Recent Findings

SRPP is a valid option for those who are refractory to medical therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) and even more appropriate for specific subsets of patient populations.

Summary

It is important for urologists to know which patient population SRPP is preferred for. Several studies have shown good patient outcomes and patient satisfaction with those who underwent SRPP.

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

References

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

  1. Carrion H, Martinez D, Parker J, Hakky T, Bickell M, Boyle A, et al. A history of the penile implant to 1974. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(3):285–93 A concise history of the development of penile implants, before and after 1974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Le B, Burnett AL. Evolution of penile prosthetic devices. Korean J Urol. 2015;56(3):179–86. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.3.179.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergman RT, Howard AH, Barnes RW. Plastic reconstruction of the penis. J Urol. 1948;59(6):1174–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)69495-3.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goodwin WE, Scott WW. Phalloplasty. J Urol. 1952;68(6):903–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)68301-0.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lash H. Silicone implant for impotence. J Urol. 1968;100(5):709–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)62605-3.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mulcahy JJ. The development of modern penile implants. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(2):177–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.11.003In-depth historical description of the development of penile implant, including all the modifications as well as many complications from current and previous penile implants.

  7. Martinez DR, Terlecki R, Brant WO. The evolution and utility of the small-carrion prosthesis, its impact, and progression to the modern-day malleable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2015;12:423–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.13014.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Genesis® Malleable Penile Prosthesis. Instructions [Package insert] for use. Coloplast; 2017.

  9. Levine LA, Becher E, Bella AJ, Brant WO, Kohler TS, Martinez-Salamanca JI, et al. Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the international consultation on sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2016;13(4):489–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nealon S, Baumgarten A, Mendez M, DiGiorgio L, Patel P, Ramasamy R, et al. 107 initial experience with the Boston Scientific Tactra semi-rigid penile prosthesis: a multi-institutional case series. J Sex Med. 2020;1(suppl 1):S26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Trost L. Future considerations in prosthetic urology. Asian J Androl. 2020;22(1):70–5. https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_103_19.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Falcone M, Rolle L, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Sedigh O, Preto M, et al. Prospective analysis of the surgical outcomes and patients’ satisfaction rate after the AMS spectra penile prosthesis implantation. Urology. 2013;82(2):373–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.04.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Spectra™ Concealable Penile Prosthesis. Instructions [Package insert] for use: American Medical Systems, Inc. 2017.

  14. Mulcahy JJ, Austoni E, Barada JH, Choi HK, Hellstrom WJG, Krishnamurti S, et al. The penile implant for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2004;1(1):98–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2004.10115.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tactra™ Malleable Penile Prosthesis. Directions [Package insert] of use. Boston Scientific; 2018.

  16. Coloplast. MRI compatibility for penile prosthesis. Accessed April 12, 2010. https://www.coloplastmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/MRI-Compatibility-10_23_18.pdf

  17. Lowe G, Smith RP, Costabile RA. A catalog of magnetic resonance imaging compatibility of penile prostheses. J Sex Med. 2012;9(5):1482–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02689.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Patil AY, Nerli RB, Hiremath MB. Satisfaction with the semirigid penile prosthesis among couples from a semiurban Indian population. J Sci Soc. 2018;45(1):26–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/jss.JSS_29_18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Eardley I. Malleable vs inflatable implant? Which one to choose. J Sex Med. 2017;14(8):975–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.05.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, Levine F, Burnett AL, McVary K, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1999;53(4):793–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00582-2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Akakpo W, Pineda MA, Burnett AL. Critical analysis of satisfaction assessment after penile prosthesis surgery. Sex Med Rev. 2017;5(2):244–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.01.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yafi F, Huynh L, Ahlering T, Rosen R. What is a “validated questionnaire”? A critical review of erectile function assessment. J Sex Med. 2020;17(5):849–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.02.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Çayan S, Aşcı R, Efesoy O, Bolat MS, Akbay E, Yaman Ö. 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):1092–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.04.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.05.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Bozkurt IH, Arslan B, Yonguc T, Kozacioglu Z, Degirmenci T, Gunlusoy B, et al. Patient and partner outcome of inflatable and semi-rigid penile prosthesis in a single institution. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41(3):535–41. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0241.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Casabé AR, Sarotto N, Gutierrez C, Bechara AJ. Satisfaction assessment with malleable prosthetic implant of Spectra (AMS) and Genesis® (Coloplast) models. Int J Impot Res. 2016;28(6):228–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2016.33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Akdemir F, Okulu E, Kayıgil Ö. Long-term outcomes of AMS Spectra® penile prosthesis implantation and satisfaction rates. Int J Impot Res. 2017;29(5):184–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2017.16.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Al Ansari A, Talib RA, Canguven O, Shamsodini A. Axial penile rigidity influences patient and partner satisfaction after penile prosthesis implantation. Archivio Ital Di Urol Androl. 2013;85(3):138–42. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2013.3.138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Agrawal V, Ralph D. An audit of implanted penile prostheses in the UK. BJU Int. 2006;98(2):393–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2006.06261.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hakky TS, Wilson SK, Salem EA, Parker J, Carrion R, Mulcahy JJ. Subcoronal rod penile prosthesis placement with scrotoplasty. J Sex Med. 2012;9(9):2202–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02900.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Miranda-Sousa A, Keating M, Moreira S, Baker M, Carrion R. Concomitant ventral phalloplasty during penile implant surgery: a novel procedure that optimizes patient satisfaction and their perception of phallic length after penile implant surgery. J Sex Med. 2007;4(5):1494–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00551.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zaazaa A, Mostafa T. Spontaneous penile tumescence by sparing cavernous tissue in the course of malleable penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med. 2019;16(3):474–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.01.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Usta M, Bivalacqua T, Tokatli Z, Rivera F, Gulkesen KH, Sikka SC, et al. Stratification of penile vascular pathologies in patients with Peyronie’s disease and in men with erectile dysfunction according to age: a comparative study. J Urol. 2004;172(1):259–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000132154.38285.c7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Djordjevic ML, Kojovic V. Penile prosthesis implantation and tunica albuginea incision without grafting in the treatment of Peyronie's disease with erectile dysfunction. Asian J Androl. 2013;15(3):391–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2012.149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Habous M, Tealab A, Farag M, Soliman T, Williamson B, Mahmoud S, et al. Malleable penile implant is an effective therapeutic option in men with Peyronie’s disease and erectile dysfunction. Sex Med. 2018;6(1):24–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2017.10.004In this publication, the efficacy and the safety of the malleable penile prosthesis for the correction of penile curvature was clearly demonstrated, as well as the performance of adjuvant intraoperative maneuvers for correction of residual curvature. Patient satisfaction was the same when compared to those patients that underwent placement of inflatable penile prosthesis.

  36. Yavuz U, Ciftci S, Ustuner M, Yilmaz H, Culha M. Surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction and Peyronie’s disease using malleable prosthesis. Urol J. 2015;12(6):2428–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Garaffa G, Minervini A, Christopher NA, Minhas S, Ralph DJ. The management of residual curvature after penile prosthesis implantation in men with Peyronie’s disease. BJU Int. 2011;108(7):1152–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.10023.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mulcahy JJ, Wilson SK. Management of Peyronie’s disease with penile prostheses. Int J Impot Res. 2002;14(5):384–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900865.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zucchi A, Silvani M, Pecoraro S. Corporoplasty with small soft axial prosthesis (Virilis I) and bovine pericardial graft (Hydrix) in Peyronie’s disease. Asian J Androl. 2013;15:275–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2012.156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Ziegelmann MJ, Bajic P, Levine LA. Peyronie’s disease: contemporary evaluation and management. Int J Urol. 2020;2020:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.14230 Accessed April 21, 2020. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/iju.14230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kadioglu A, Sanli O, Akman T, Ersay A, Guven S, Mammadov F. Graft materials in Peyronie’s disease surgery: a comprehensive review. J Sex Med. 2007;4(3):581–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00461.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Capece M, La Rocca R, Mirone V, Bivalacqua TJ, Castiglione F, Albersen M, et al. A systematic review on ischemic priapism and immediate implantation: do we need more data? Sex Med Rev. 2019;7(3):530–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.10.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yücel ÖB, Pazır Y, Kadıoğlu A. Penile prosthesis implantation in priapism. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6(2):310–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.08.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ralph DJ, Borley NC, Allen C, Kirkham A, Freeman A, Minhas S, et al. The use of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients presenting with priapism. BJU Int. 2010;106(11):1714–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.09368.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mishra K, Loeb A, Bukavina L, Baumgarten A, Beilan J, Mendez M, et al. Management of priapism: a contemporary review. Sex Med Rev. 2020;8(1):131–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.01.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rees RW, Kalsi J, Minhas S, Peters J, Kell P, Ralph DJ. The management of low-flow priapism with the immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis. BJU Int. 2002;90(9):893–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2002.03058.x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ralph DJ, Garaffa G, Muneer A, Freeman A, Rees R, Christopher AN, et al. The immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis for acute ischaemic priapism. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):1033–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tausch TJ, Zhao LC, Morey AF, Siegel JA, Belsante MJ, Seideman CA, et al. Malleable penile prosthesis is a cost-effective treatment for refractory ischemic priapism. J Sex Med. 2015;12(3):824–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zacharakis E, De Luca F, Raheem AA, Garaffa G, Christopher N, Muneer A, et al. Early insertion of a malleable penile prosthesis in ischaemic priapism allows later upsizing of the cylinders. Scand J Urol. 2015;49(6):468–71. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2015.1059359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Salem EA, El Aasser O. Management of ischemic priapism by penile prosthesis insertion: prevention of distal erosion. J Urol. 2010;183(6):2300–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Zacharakis E, Garaffa G, Raheem AA, Christopher AN, Muneer A, Ralph DJ. Penile prosthesis insertion in patients with refractory ischaemic priapism: early vs delayed implantation. BJU Int. 2014;114(4):576–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ralph DJ, Garaffa G, Muneer A, Freeman A, Rees R, Christopher AN, et al. The immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis for acute ischaemic priapism. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):1033–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Van der Sluis WB, Pigot GL, El-Tamimi M, Ronkes BL, de Haseth KB, Özer M, et al. A retrospective cohort study on surgical outcomes of penile prosthesis implantation surgery in transgender men after phalloplasty. Urology. 2019;132:195–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.06.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rooker SA, Vyas KS, DiFilippo EC, Nolan IT, Morrison SD, Santucci RA. The Rise of the Neophallus: A Systematic Review of Penile Prosthetic Outcomes and Complications in Gender-Affirming Surgery. J Sex Med. 2019;16(5):661–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.03.009A very thorough review regarding the timing, selection, and placement of penile prosthesis after phalloplasty in trans men. Also, intraoperative and postoperative complications as well as recommendations for prevention of these are discussed.

  55. Kocjancic E, Iacovelli V. Penile prostheses. Clin Plast Surg. 2018;45(3):407–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2018.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kang A, Aizen JM, Cohen AJ, Bales GT, Pariser JJ. Techniques and considerations of prosthetic surgery after phalloplasty in the transgender male. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8(3):273–82. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.06.02.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Morrison SD, Chen ML, Crane CN. An overview of female-to-male gender-confirming surgery. Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14(8):486–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2017.64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Djordjevic ML, Bencic M, Kojovic V, Stojanovic B, Bizic M, Kojic S, et al. Musculocutaneous latissimus dorsi flap for phalloplasty in female to male gender affirmation surgery. World J Urol. 2019;37(4):631–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02641-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Djordjevic ML, Bizic MR, Duisin D, Bouman M-B, Buncamper M. Reversal surgery in regretful male-to-female transsexuals after sex reassignment surgery. J Sex Med. 2016;13(6):1000–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.02.173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hoebeke PB, Decaestecker K, Beysens M, Opdenakker Y, Lumen N, Monstrey SM. Erectile implants in female-to-male transsexuals: our experience in 129 patients. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):334–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.03.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kim YD, Yang SO, Lee JK, Jung TY, Shim HB. Usefulness of a malleable penile prosthesis in patients with a spinal cord injury. Int J Urol. 2008;15(10):919–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02115.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Zermann D-H, Kutzenberger J, Sauerwein D, Schubert J, Loeffler U. Penile prosthetic surgery in neurologically impaired patients: long-term followup. J Urol. 2006;175(3):1041–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00344-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Al Khallaf HH. Analysis of sexual functions in male nondiabetic hemodialysis patients and renal transplant recipients. Transpl Int. 2010;23(2):176–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2009.00972.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Mota RL, Fonseca R, Santos JC, Covita AM, Marques N, Matias P, et al. Sexual dysfunction and satisfaction in kidney transplant patients. J Sex Med. 2019;16(7):1018–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.03.266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Barry JM. Treating erectile dysfunction in renal transplant recipients. Drugs. 2007;67(7):975–83. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200767070-00003.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Cuellar DC, Sklar GN. Penile prosthesis in the organ transplant recipient. Urology. 2001;57(1):138–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00876-1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Sun AY, Babbar P, Gill BC, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Penile prosthesis in solid organ transplant recipients – a matched cohort study. Urology. 2018;117:86–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.03.048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Thirumavalavan N, Gross MS, Munarriz R. Techniques of ectopic reservoir placement and their pitfalls. TJ Sex Med. 2017;14(11):1451–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.09.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wilson S, Delk J. Historical advances in penile prostheses. Int J Impot Res. 2000;12(S4):S101–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Mulcahy JJ. Treatment alternatives for the infected penile implant. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15(suppl 5):S147–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901092.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Mulcahy JJ. Long-term experience with salvage of infected penile implants. J Urol. 2000;163(2):481–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)67906-2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01145.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Selph JP, Carson CC. Penile prosthesis infection: approaches to prevention and treatment. Urol Clin North Am. 2011;38(2):227–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2011.02.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Peters CE, Carlos EC, Lentz AC. Purulent inflatable penile prostheses can be safely immediately salvaged in insulin-dependent diabetics. J Sex Med. 2018;15(12):1673–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.10.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Gross MS, Phillips EA, Carrasquillo RJ, Thornton A, Greenfield JM, Levine LA, et al. Multicenter investigation of the micro-organisms involved in penile prosthesis infection: an analysis of the efficacy of the AUA and EAU guidelines for penile prosthesis prophylaxis. J Sex Med. 2017;14(3):455–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.01.007A retrospective multi-institutional study in which 227 cultures were obtained in explantation or salvage procedures. A high incidence of Candida species as well as anaerobes was found, and how the antibiotics recommended by the American Urological Association and the European Urological Association do not cover many of the organisms that were grown.

  77. Gross MS, Phillips EA, Balen A, Eid JF, Yang C, Simon R, et al. The malleable implant salvage technique: infection outcomes after Mulcahy salvage procedure and replacement of infected inflatable penile prosthesis with malleable prosthesis. J Urol. 2016;195(3):694–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.091A retrospective multi-institution study, in which employment of the Mulcahy salvage technique was used but with insertion of a malleable implant. Ninety-three percent of the patients that underwent this modified technique remained infection free in the postoperative period.

  78. Lopategui DM, Balise RR, Bouzoubaa LA, Wilson SK, Kava BR. The impact of immediate salvage surgery on corporeal length preservation in patients presenting with penile implant infections. J Urol. 2018;200(1):171–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.01.082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Swords K, Martinez DR, Lockhart JL, Carrion R. A preliminary report on the usage of an intracorporal antibiotic cast with synthetic high purity CaSO4 for the treatment of infected penile implant. J Sex Med. 2013;10(4):1162–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12060.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Shaeer O, Shaeer K, Soliman AbdelRahman IF. Salvage and extracapsular implantation for penile prosthesis infection or extrusion. J Sex Med. 2019;16(5):755–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.02.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Köhler TS, Modder JK, Dupree JM, Bush NC, McVary KT. Malleable implant substitution for the management of penile prosthesis pump erosion: a pilot study. J Sex Med. 2009;6(5):1474–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01236.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Gupta NK, Sulaver R, Welliver C, Kottwitz M, Frederick L, Dynda D, et al. Scrotoplasty at time of penile implant is at high risk for dehiscence in diabetics. J Sex Med. 2019;16(4):602–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.02.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Mulcahy JJ. Surgical techniques: crural perforation during penile prosthetic surgery. J Sex Med. 2006;3(1):177–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.00199.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Mulcahy JJ. The prevention and management of noninfectious complications of penile implants. Sex Med Rev. 2015;3(3):203–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/smrj.41Excellent summary for the prevention and the management of most intraoperative and postoperative complications of penile implant surgery.

  85. Anele UA, Le BV, Burnett AL. Suprapubic cystostomy for the management of urethral injuries during penile prosthesis implantation. Sex Med. 2014;2(4):178–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/sm2.44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Sadeghi-Nejad H, Fam M. Penile prosthesis surgery in the management of erectile dysfunction. Arab J Urol. 2013;11(3):245–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2013.05.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Karpman E, DiGiorgio L, Carrion RE. Distal biologic cap for impending erosion. J Sex Med. 2020;17:551–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.11.265A novel technique for the management of impending erosion with the use of a biological cap placed in the distal end of the penile implant.

  88. Pinheiro MA, Barroso Filho HB, Mesquita FJ, Teixeira de Souza I, Silva Gumaraes R, Moura Santos E, et al. Multiple site fracture of both rods in a malleable penile implant. Case Rep Urol. 2016;2016:9564904–3. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9564904.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Bozkurt IH, Yonguc T, Arslan B, Kozacioglu Z, Degirmenci T, Polat S. Minareci S Spontaneous bilateral rod fracture of malleable penile prosthesis. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(9–10):E739–40. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Akand M, Özayar A, Yaman Ö, Demirel C. Mechanical failure with malleable penile prosthesis. Urology. 2007;70(5):1007.e11–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Tatar IG, Dilli A, Keyik B, Hekimoğlu B. Fracture of a semirigid penile prosthesis: MRI findings and review of the literature. CausaPedia. 2014;3:734 Accessed April 29, 2019. http://causapedia.com/manuscript/734/makale/radyoloji/fracture-of-a-semirigid-penile-prosthesis-mri-findings-and-review-of-the-literature.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Silverstein AD, Henry GD, Evans B, Pasmore M, Simmons CJ, Donatucci CF. Biofilm formation on clinically noninfected penile prostheses. J Urol. 2006;176(3):1008–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Wilson SK, Costerton JW. Biofilm and penile prosthesis infections in the era of coated implants: a review. J Sex Med. 2012;9(1):44–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02428.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Carson CC. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prosthesis in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1611–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000118245.66976.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Mahon J, Dornbier R, Wegrzyn G, Faraday MM, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Hakim L, et al. Infectious adverse events following the placement of a penile prosthesis: a systematic review. Sex Med Rev. 2020;8(2):348–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.07.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Nehra A, Carson CC, Chapin AK, Ginkel AM. Long-term infection outcomes of 3-piece antibiotic impregnated penile prostheses used in replacement implant surgery. J Urol. 2012;188(3):899–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raul E. Fernandez-Crespo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Rafael Carrion is a consultant for Coloplast and Endo Pharmaceutical. Dr. Justin Parker is a consultant for Coloplast and Baxter. Dr. Raul E. Fernandez-Crespo and Dr. Kristina Buscaino each declare no potential conflicts of interests.

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.

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 Men’s Health

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernandez-Crespo, R.E., Buscaino, K., Parker, J. et al. Current Status for Semirigid Penile Prosthetic Devices. Curr Urol Rep 22, 7 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-01028-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-01028-4

Keywords

  • Penile prosthesis
  • Semirigid penile prosthesis
  • Erectile dysfunction