Skip to main content

Reoperation for Penile Prosthesis Implantation

  • Chapter
  • 113 Accesses

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

Abstract

Upon introduction to treat male erectile dysfunction (ED) in the 1970s, penile prosthesis implantation revolutionized our practice for managing ED. Even in the era of effective oral medications for ED, sales of penile prostheses have been relatively stable in the past decade (1). It is possible to foresee the continuous need for penile prostheses as more and more patients are seeking treatment for ED, thanks to the recent media coverage and the improved knowledge of the general population about ED. The modifications and improvements of penile prostheses have maximized the device’s reliability and longevity. The 5-yr survival of some models has reached more than 92% (2,3). It is our belief that the modern inflatable devices are very mechanically reliable. Reoperations for penile prosthesis implantation are now more likely for infection, patient dissatisfaction, or physician error than for mechanical breakdown. Before 1990, about 57% of the reoperations at the Mayo Clinic were for mechanical failure or device malfunction (4). The mechanical failure of some current devices has been as low as 0.8%/yr for the first 3.5 yr and then 3.1% in the next 1.5 yr of observation (2).

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Mulcahy JJ (1999) Distal corporoplasty for lateral extrusion of penile prosthesis cylinders. J Urol 161:193.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR II (1999) Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced Mentor Alpha I penile prosthesis. J Urol 162:715.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, et al. (1997) Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700 series inflatable penile prostheses: comparison of CX/ CXM and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol 158:1400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lewis RW, Morgan WR (1995) Failure of the penile prosthesis. In: Cohen MS, Resnick MI, eds., Reoperative Urology, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, pp. 235–243.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson SK (1997) Penile prosthesis implantation: pearls, pitfalls, and perils. In: Hellstrom WJG, ed., Male Infertility and Sexual Dysfunction, New York: Springer, pp. 529–548.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Moncada I, Hernandez C, Jara J, et al. (1998) Buckling of cylinders may cause prolonged penile pain after prosthesis implantation: a case control study using magnetic resonance imaging of the penis. J Urol 160:67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lewis RW, Mclaren R (1993) Reoperation for penile prosthesis implantation. Problems Urol 7:381.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jarow JP (1996) Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol 156:402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaufman JM, Kaufman JL, Borges FD (1998) Immediate salvage procedure for infected penile prosthesis. J Urol 159:816.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilson Sk, Cleves MA, Delk JR II (1996) Glycosylated hemoglobin and the risk of infection among penile implant patients. Int J Impot Res 8:120.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Knoll LD (1998) Penile prosthetic infection: management by delayed and immediate salvage techniques. Urology 52:287.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Garber BB, Marcus SM (1998) Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection? Urology 52:291.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rajpurkar A, Li H, Dhabuwala CB (1999) Penile implant success in patients with corporal fibrosis using multiple incisions and minimal scar tissue excision. Urology 54:145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carbone DJ Jr, Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, et al. (1998) Management of severe corporeal fibrosis with implantation of prosthesis via a transverse scrotal approach. J Urol 159:125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mooreville M, Adrian S, Delk II JR, Wilson SK (1999) Implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis in patients with severe corporeal fibrosis: introduction of a new penile cavernotome. J Urol 162:2054.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Knoll LD, Fisher J, Benson RC Jr, et al. (1996) Treatment of penile fibrosis with prosthetic implantation and flap advancement with tissue debulking. J Urol 156:394.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ (1996) The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol 155:155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mulcahy JJ (2000) Long-term experience with salvage of infected penile implants. J Urol 163: 481.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mulcahy JJ (1997) The complex penile prosthesis. In: Hellstrom WJG, ed., Male Infertility and Sexual Dysfunction, New York: Springer, pp. 549–562.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Alter GJ, Greisman J, Werthman PE, et al. (1998) Use of a prefabricated tunica vaginalis fascia flap to reconstruct the tunica albuginea after recurrent penile prosthesis extrusion. J Urol 159:128.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Landman J, Bar-Chama N (1999) Initial experience with processed human cadaveric allograft skin for reconstruction of the corpus cavernosum in repair of distal extrusion of a penile prosthesis. Urology 53:1222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith CP, Kraus SR, Boone TB (1998) Management of impending penile prosthesis erosion with a polytetrafluoroethylene distal wind sock graft. J Urol 160:2037.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kowalczyk JJ, Mulcahy JJ (1996) Penile curvatures and aneurysmal defects with the Ultrex penile prosthesis corrected with insertion of the AMS700CX. J Urol 156:398.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ball TP (1980) Surgical repair of penile “SST” deformity. Urology 15:603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim SC, Seo KK, Yoon SH (1999) Fracture at the input tube-cylinder junction of AMS 700 inflatable penile prostheses as a complication of a modified implantation technique in a series of 99 patients. Urology 54:148.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wang, R., Lewis, R.W. (2002). Reoperation for Penile Prosthesis Implantation. In: Carson, C.C. (eds) Urologic Prostheses. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-096-4_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59259-096-4_15

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-61737-242-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-59259-096-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics