State of the Reservoir: Current Concepts of Penile Implant Reservoir Placement and Potential Complications


Purpose of Review

To discuss mechanical and surgical innovations in inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery and their implications on reservoir placement and patient outcomes.

Recent Findings

The past decade has seen a new emphasis on optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications associated with IPP reservoirs. Innovations in device design have accordingly yielded safer, more durable IPP outcomes over the past four decades. Modifications in surgical approach for reservoir placement abound for both traditional space of Retzius and ectopic reservoir placement techniques.


Surgical and medical history, patient anatomy, and patient preference should all be considered when choosing approach for IPP reservoir placement. Prosthetic urologists should be proficient in multiple approaches to provide the best care to their patients.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


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

  1. 1.

    Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2(1):80–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Pastuszak AW, Lentz AC, Farooq A, Jones L, Bella AJ. Technological improvements in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis design over the past 40 years. J Sex Med. 2015;12(S7):415–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2,384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007;4(4i):1074–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wilson SK, Warman GE, Lange JL. Eleven years of experience with the inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1988;139(5):951–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wilson S, Cleves MA, Delk I. Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced mentor* Alpha I penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1999;162(3):715–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB, Guillonneau B, Fromont G, Menon M, Vallancien G. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol. 2001;40(1):70–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Skarecky DW. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after the first decade: surgical evolution or new paradigm. ISRN Urol. 2013;2013:1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Madiraju SK, Hakky TS, Perito PE, Wallen JJ. Placement of inflatable penile implants in patients with prior radical pelvic surgery: a literature review. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7(1):189–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    • Hernández JC, Trost L, Köhler T, et al. Emerging complications following alternative reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a 5-year multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2019;201(3):581–6 This is a multi-institutional study evaluating and comparing complications following IPP reservoir placement in the SOR versus various alternative reservoir locations.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Food U, Administration D. FDA PMA supplemental approval. Approval for changes in the labeling of the Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis surgical protocol to incorporate ectopic placement. 2015.

  13. 13.

    Gupta NK, Ring J, Trost L, Wilson SK, Köhler TS. The penoscrotal surgical approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(4):628–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Levine LA, Hoeh MP. Review of penile prosthetic reservoir: complications and presentation of a modified reservoir placement technique. J Sex Med. 2012;9(11):2759–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Grande P, Antonini G, Cristini C, de Berardinis E, Gatto A, di Lascio G, et al. Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36(7):1167–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Deho’ F, Henry GD, Marone EM, et al. Severe vascular complication after implantation of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2008;5(12):2956–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hudak SJ, Mora RV. Unilateral ureteral obstruction due to a migrated inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir. J Urol. 2008;180:336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Furlow WL, Goldwasser B. Salvage of the eroded inflatable penile prosthesis: a new concept. J Urol. 1987;138(2):312–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Brison D, Ilbeigi P, Sadeghi-Nejad H. Reservoir repositioning and successful thrombectomy for deep venous thrombosis secondary to compression of pelvic veins by an inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir. J Sex Med. 2007;4(4):1185–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Henry G, Hsaio W, Karpman E, Bella AT, 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  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    • Capoccia EM, Phelps JN, Levine LA. Modified inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir placement into space of Retzius: comparing outcomes in men with or without prior pelvic surgery. J Sex Med. 2017;14(7):968–73 This large volume, single-surgeon retrospective review evaluates the safety and efficacy of a modified SOR reservoir placement technique with Jorgenson scissors in patients with and without history of pelvic surgery.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Riemenschneider HW. Epigastric placement of reservoir for inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1981;17(1):79–81.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hartman R, Helfand B, McVary K. Outcomes of lateral retroperitoneal reservoir placement of three-piece penile prosthesis in patients following radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res. 2010;22(4):279–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Perito PE, Wilson SK. Surgical techniques: traditional (retroperitoneal) and abdominal wall (ectopic) reservoir placement. J Sex Med. 2011;8(3):656–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    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  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    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  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    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  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    •• Baumgarten AS, Kavoussi M, VanDyke ME, et al. Avoiding deep pelvic complications Using “five-step” technique for high submuscular placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs. BJU Int. 2020;145(1):298. This recent study proposes a "Five-Step" technique to improve the reliability of reservoir placement into the HSM space.

  29. 29.

    •• 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 This cadaveric study challenges whether IPP reservoirs ostensibly placed into the HSM space are ultimately found in that location.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Baumgarten AS, Hudak SJ, Morey AF. Erectile dysfunction after urethroplasty: is the risk overstated? J Sex Med. 2020;17(2):171–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Pagliara T, Viers B, Scott J, Morey A. Extended experience with high submuscular placement of urological prosthetic balloons and reservoirs: refined technique for optimal outcomes. Urol Pract. 2018;5(4):293–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kava BR, Lopatagui DM, Levine A, Ramasamy R. Trans-fascial placement of a high, sub muscular reservoir in patients following radical cystectomy: safety, efficacy, and predictability of final reservoir location verified with abdominal imaging. J Sex Med. 2019;16(2):338–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Garber BB, Gross MS, Stember D. Sub-external oblique placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs—initial experience. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31(6):400–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    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  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    •• Karpman E, Brant WO, Kansas B, 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 This large-volume, multi-institutional study presents the preliminiary outcomes of the PROPPER Study which prospectively evaluates the safety and efficacy of SOR versus submuscular reservoir placement.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    • Osmonov D, Chomicz A, Tropmann-Frick M, Arndt K, Jünemann K. High-submuscular vs. space of Retzius reservoir placement during implantation of inflatable penile implants. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32(1):18–23 This is the largest European study to date to evaluate HSM vs SOR reservoir placement; the authors concluded that HSM placement was safe, efficient, and resulted in high levels of patient satisfaction.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Tausch TJ, Morey AF, Zhao LC, Knoll P, Simhan J, Scott JF, et al. High submuscular versus space of Retzius placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs: results of a surgeon survey. Can J Urol. 2014;21(5):7465–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Garber BB. Author Reply. Urology. 2016;88:95–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam S. Baumgarten.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Maia VanDyke, Adam Baumgarten, Nicolas Ortiz, and Steven Hudak each declare no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Allen Morey receives honoraria for being a guest lecturer/meeting participant for Boston Scientific and Coloplast Corp.

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

Van Dyke, M., Baumgarten, A.S., Ortiz, N. et al. State of the Reservoir: Current Concepts of Penile Implant Reservoir Placement and Potential Complications. Curr Urol Rep 22, 20 (2021).

Download citation


  • Inflatable penile prosthesis
  • Reservoir
  • Erectile dysfunction
  • High submuscular
  • Ectopic