Skip to main content
Log in

The utility of lockout valve reservoirs in preventing autoinflation in penile prostheses

  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: Autoinflation is a troublesomecomplication following penile prosthesisplacement that may be potentiated by prevesicalscarring following radical prostatectomy. Weevaluated the frequency of autoinflation andother complications following penile prosthesisplacement in radical prostatectomy patients andcontrols as a surrogate to establishing theutility of lockout reservoirs in preventingautoinflation.Methods: 139 prostheses (including 14with lockout reservoirs) were placed in 132 men(including 35 post-prostatectomy patients) overa 51/2 year period at our institution. Outcomesassessed include postoperative complicationsand the need for revision or replacement of theprosthesis. Multivariable regression analysiswas used to determine the association ofpatient, device-specific, and perioperativecharacteristics with these outcomes.Results: There was no difference in thepostoperative complication and re-operationrates between post-prostatectomy patients andcontrols (both p > 0.77). The incidence ofautoinflation in post-prostatectomy patientsand controls was 3% and 5%, respectively(p > 0.99). Patients with prior prostheseswere 3 times as likely to develop apostoperative complication or requireprosthesis revision (p = 0.02).Conclusion: Penile prostheses are welltolerated in post-prostatectomy patients withcomparable outcomes to those men with organicerectile dysfunction. The frequency ofautoinflation does not appear to be increasedin post-prostatectomy patients. Initialresults with the lockout valve reservoir inpreventing autoinflation are encouraging thoughadditional study is warranted to justify theirroutine use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tefilli MV, Dubocq F, Rajpurkar A et al. Assessment of psychosexual adjustment after insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 1998; 52: 1106–1112.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  4. Govier FE, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ et al. Mechanical reliability, surgical complications, and patient and partner satisfaction of the modern three-piece inflatable prosthesis. Urology 1998; 52: 282–286.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Potosky AL, Legler J, Albertsen PC et al. Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1582–1592.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Padma-Nathan H, the Sildenafil Study Group. Efficacy of sildenafil citrate in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in men with transurethral or radical prostatectomy. J Urol Suppl 1999.

  7. Cuellar DC, Sklar GN. Penile prosthesis in the organ transplant recipient. Urology 2001; 57: 138–141.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Garber BB. Mentor Alpha 1 inflatable penile prosthesis: patient satisfaction and device reliability. Urology 1994; 43: 214–217.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Garber BB. Inflatable penile prosthesis: results of 150 cases. Br J Urol 1996; 78: 933–935.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Garber BB. Outpatient inflatable penile prosthesis insertion. Urology 1997; 49: 600–603.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hosmer DW Jr., Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE et al. Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. J Urol 2000; 164: 376–380.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Montague DK, Angermeier KW. Penile prosthesis implantation. Urol Clin North Am 2001; 28: 355–361.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wilson SL, Delk JR II, Van Buren AR. Excessive periprosthetic capsule formation of the penile prosthesis reservoir: incidence in various prosthesis and simple surgical solution. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association 1995; (abstract 520).

  15. Govier FE, McClure RD, Weissman RM et al. Back-pressure testing to prevent autoinflation of penile prosthetic devices. Urology 1996; 48: 779–780

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dubocq FM, Bianco FJ Jr, Maralani SJ et al. Outcome analysis of penile implant surgery after external beam radiation for prostate cancer. J Urol 1997; 158: 1787–1790.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana A. Ohl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hollenbeck, B.K., Miller, D.C. & Ohl, D.A. The utility of lockout valve reservoirs in preventing autoinflation in penile prostheses. Int Urol Nephrol 34, 379–383 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024439705539

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024439705539

Navigation