With the introduction of penile prostheses in 1973, interest in erectile dysfunction (ED) increased greatly. Prior to that time, no effective treatments were available and the topic was rarely discussed. Changing sexual customs, beginning in late 1960s, provided a more open forum for discussion and more patients were willing to seek treatment for this common problem. Research on the anatomy and physiology of erections and ED soon followed; investigators sought forms of therapy less aggressive and invasive than the surgical placement of prosthetic devices. Highly effective oral, intraurethral, and intracavernous medications have since been marketed, and vacuum erection devices have proven safe, effective, and acceptable to many patients. The growing number of patients opting to treat their impotence problem has, for the most part, selected a less aggressive form of treatment, ie, medications and vacuum devices. Penile implant sales, however, have remained stable over the past decade. These devices have provided a predictable and reliable means of restoring erections for many patients, especially for those in whom less invasive treatments have not been effective or in whom scar tissue in the penis has not permitted a satisfactory result with other alternatives.
KeywordsCorpus Cavernosum Tunica Albuginea Penile Prosthesis Corporal Body Penile Shaft
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Mulcahy JJ: Update: penile prostheses. Contemp Urol
1994, 6:15–21.Google Scholar
Knoll LD: Use of penile prosthetic implants in patients with penile fibrosis. Urol Clin North Am
1995, 22:847–863.Google Scholar
Eigner EB, Kabalin JN, Dessler R: Penile implants in the treatment of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol
1991, 145:69–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Carson CC: Infections in genitourinary prostheses. Urol Clin North Am
1989, 16:139–147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Wahle GW, Mulcahy JJ: Ventral penile approach in unitary component penile prosthesis placement. J Urol
1993, 149:537–538.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Fishman IJ, Scott FB, Selim A, et al.
: The rescue procedure: an alternative for managing an infected penile prosthesis. Contemp Urol
1997, 9:73–80.Google Scholar
Wilson SK, Delk JR: A new treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis J Urol
1994, 152:1121–1123.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Mulcahy JJ, Rowland RG: Tunica wedge excision to correct penile curvature associated with the inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol
1987, 138:63–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ball TP: Surgical repair of penile “SST” deformity. Urology
1980, 15:603–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ: The penile prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol
1996, 155:155–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teloken C, Souto JC, DaRos C, et al.
: Prosthetic penile infection: rescue procedure with rifamycin J Urol
1992, 148:1905–1906.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gregory JC, Purcell MH, Standeven J: The inflatable penile prosthesis: failure of rear tip extenders in reducing the incidence of cylinder leakage. J Urol
1984, 131:668–669.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, et al.
: Long term mechanical reliability of AMS 700 series inflatable penile protheses: comparison of CX/CXM and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol
1997, 158:1400–1402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabalin JN, Kuo JC: Long term follow-up and patient satisfaction with the Dynaflex self-contained inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol
1997, 158:456–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallon B, Ghanem H: Sexual performance and satisfaction with penile prostheses in impotence of various etiologies. Int J Impot Res
1990, 2:35–42.Google Scholar
Garber BB: Mentor alpha-1 penile prosthesis: patient satisfaction and device reliability. Urology
1994, 43:214–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren RH, Barrett DM: Patient and partner satisfaction with the AMS 700 penile prosthesis. J Urol
1992, 147:62–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999