Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient and Device Selection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Penile Implant Surgery

  • 459 Accesses

Abstract

Penile prosthesis (PP) has undergone significant innovation since its first inception in the early 1970s. Urologists are gradually embracing prosthetic urology practice by attending live surgical and cadaveric workshops. Knowing which PP to choose in a particular patient and what to counsel are vital to have a satisfied patient after the procedure. Modifiable risks factors such as diabetes, smoking and obesity should be optimised before the surgery. PP implantation in special scenarios such as solid organ transplant recipient, neurological impairment, HIV-positive status and synchronous artificial urinary sphincter placement have been addressed in this chapter. Involving both the patient and the sexual partner before the surgery in most of the discussions will alleviate their apprehension and expectations. Psychosexual counselling may be preferred in CURSED patients (Compulsive, Unrealistic, Revision, Surgeon Shopping, Entitled, Denial and Psychiatric) planning for PP. Majority of the papers published on PP are based on devices from Boston Scientific and Coloplast which are the major players in PP division. There are differences in antibiotic coating, material of the cylinders, axial rigidity of cylinders, lock-valve mechanism and shape and sizes of reservoirs and pump. Understanding on how to select the right device for a right patient is what this chapter offers to its readers.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Sunaryo PL, Colaco M, Terlecki R. Penile prostheses and the litigious patient: a legal database review. J Sex Med. 2014;11(10):2589–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sørensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2012;147(4):373–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Toyoda Y, Fu RH, Li L, Otterburn DM, Rohde CH. Smoking as an independent risk factor for postoperative complications in plastic surgical procedures: a propensity score-matched analysis of 36,454 patients from the NSQIP database from 2005 to 2014. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(1):226–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Quan H, Ouyang L, Zhou H, Ouyang Y, Xiao H. The effect of preoperative smoking cessation and smoking dose on postoperative complications following radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective study of 2469 patients. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lipsky MJ, Onyeji I, Golan R, Munarriz R, Kashanian JA, Stember DS, Stahl PJ. Diabetes is a risk factor for inflatable penile prosthesis infection: analysis of a large statewide database. Sex Med. 2019;7(1):35–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Le NN, Rose MB, Levinson H, Klitzman B. Implant healing in experimental animal models of diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(3):605–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Gefen A, Chen J, Elad D. Stresses in the normal and diabetic human penis following implantation of an inflatable prosthesis. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1999;37(5):625–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Habous M, Tal R, Tealab A, Soliman T, Nassar M, Mekawi Z, Mahmoud S, Abdelwahab O, Elkhouly M, Kamr H, Remeah A, Binsaleh S, Ralph D, Mulhall J. Defining a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level that predicts increased risk of penile implant infection. BJU Int. 2018;121(2):293–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chung E. Penile prosthesis implant in the special populations: diabetics, neurogenic conditions, fibrotic cases, concurrent urinary continence surgery, and salvage implants. Asian J Androl. 2020;22(1):39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hebert KJ, Kohler TS. Penile prosthesis infection: myths and realities. World J Mens Health. 2019;37(3):276–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Esposito K, Giugliano F, Di Palo C, et al. Effect of lifestyle changes on erectile dysfunction in obese men: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291(24):2978–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Doyle SL, Lysaght J, Reynolds JV. Obesity and post-operative complications in patients undergoing non-bariatric surgery. Obes Rev. 2010;11(12):875–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Akin-Olugbade O, Parker M, Guhring P, Mulhall J. Determinants of patient satisfaction following penile prosthesis surgery. J Sex Med. 2006;3(4):743–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gross MS. Penile prosthesis infection. AUA Update Ser. 37(11):109–15.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gross MS, Phillips EA, Carrasquillo RJ, Thornton A, Greenfield JM, Levine LA, Alukal JP, Conners WP 3rd, Glina S, Tanrikut C, Honig SC, Becher EF, Bennett NE, Wang R, Perito PE, Stahl PJ, RossellóGayá M, RossellóBarbará M, Cedeno JD, Gheiler EL, Kalejaiye O, Ralph DJ, Köhler TS, Stember DS, Carrion RE, Maria PP, Brant WO, Bickell MW, Garber BB, Pineda M, Burnett AL 2nd, Eid JF, Henry GD, Munarriz RM. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mulcahy JJ. Long-term experience with salvage of infected penile implants. J Urol. 2000;163(2):481–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weinstein HJ. The relation between the nasal-staphylococcal-carrier state and the incidence of postoperative complications. N Engl J Med. 1959;260:1303–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. von Eiff C, Becker K, Machka K, Stammer H, Peters G. Nasal carriage as a source of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:11–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bode LG, Kluytmans JA, Wertheim HF, Bogaers D, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Roosendaal R, Troelstra A, Box AT, Voss A, van der Tweel I, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA, Vos MC. Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 7;362(1):9–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kavoussi NL, Siegel JA, Viers BR, Pagliara TJ, Hofer MD, Cordon BH, Shakir N, Scott JM, Morey AF. Preoperative urine culture results correlate poorly with bacteriology of urologic prosthetic device infections. J Sex Med. 2017;14(1):163–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kavoussi NL, Viers BR, Pagilara TJ, et al. Are urine cultures necessary prior to urologic prosthetic surgery? Sex Med Rev. 2018;6(1):157–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Katz DJ, Stember DS, Nelson CJ, Mulhall JP. Perioperative prevention of penile prosthesis infection: practice patterns among surgeons of SMSNA and ISSM. J Sex Med. 2012;9:1705–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Levine LA, Becher E, Bella A, Brant W, Kohler T, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shabsigh R, Perelman MA, Laumann EO, Lockhart DC. Drivers and barriers to seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction: a comparison of six countries. BJU Int. 2004;94(7):1055–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chung E, Solomon M, DeYoung L, Brock GB. Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction rates among elderly male aged ≥75 years with inflatable penile prosthesis implant for medically refractory erectile dysfunction. World J Urol. 2014;32(1):173–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Biewenga E, Aisen C, Nguyen T, Gabrielson A, Kim N, Goldstein I. Erectile dysfunction in an adolescent with non-Hodgkin lymphoma following chemotherapy with agents known to induce cardiac fibrosis/myocardial necrosis: a case report and literature review. J Sex Med. 2019;16:S1–S143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Weckx F, Van Renterghem K. Penile implant surgery for conservative therapy resistant erectile dysfunction in a 19y-old. Urol Case Rep. 2020;31:101161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eucr.2020.101161.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kigera JW, Straetemans M, Vuhaka SK, Nagel IM, Naddumba EK, Boer K. Is there an increased risk of post-operative surgical site infection after orthopaedic surgery in HIV patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42254.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Moran G, Asafu-Adjei D, Li G, Lipsky M, Stember D, Stahl PJ. Implant selection patterns and reoperation rates amongst HIV positive and negative patients that underwent penile prosthesis surgery. J Sex Med. 2018;15:S1–S93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Li K, Brandes ER, Chang SL, Leow JJ, Chung BI, Wang Y, Eswara JR. Trends in penile prosthesis implantation and analysis of predictive factors for removal. World J Urol. 2019;37(4):639–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Guild GN, Moore TJ, Barnes W, Hermann C. CD4 count is associated with postoperative infection in patients with orthopaedic trauma who are HIV positive. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:1507–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Payne K, Popat S, Lipshultz LI, Thirumavalavan N. The prevalence and treatment of erectile dysfunction in male solid organ transplant recipients. Sex Med Rev. 2019:S2050-0521(19)30102-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.10.002. Epub ahead of print

  33. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dick B, Greenberg JW, Polchert M, Natale C, Hellstrom WJG, Raheem OA. A systematic review of penile prosthesis surgery in organ transplant recipients [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jul 5]. Sex Med Rev. 2020:S2050-0521(20)30049-4.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cuellar DC, Sklar GN. Penile prosthesis in the organ transplant recipient. Urology. 2001;57(1):138–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Morey AF, Cefalu CA, Hudak SJ. High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs via transscrotal approach. J Sex Med. 2013;10:603–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Barry JM. Treating erectile dysfunction in renal transplant patients. Drugs. 2007;67:975–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Collins KP, Hackler RH. Complications of penile prostheses in the spinal cord injury population. J Urol. 1988;140:984–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Diokno AC, Sonda LP. Compatibility of genitourinary prostheses and intermittent self-catheterization. J Urol. 1981;125:659–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zermann D-H, Kutzenberger J, Sauerwein D, et al. Penile prosthetic surgery in neurologically impaired patients: long-term followup. J Urol. 2006;175:1041–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rolle L, Ceruti C, Sedigh O, et al. Surgical implantation of artificial urinary device and penile prosthesis through transscrotal incision for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction: synchronous or delayed procedure? Urology. 2012;80:1046–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Moncada I. Dual implant in patients with incontinence and erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2006;3(2):367–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kendirci M, Gupta S, Shaw K, Morey A, Jones L, Hakim L, Hellstrom WJ. Synchronous prosthetic implantation through a transscrotal incision: an outcome analysis. J Urol. 2006;175(6):2218–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wilson S. The top 5 surgical things that I wish I had known earlier in my career: lessons learned from a career of prosthetic urology. J Sex Med. 2018;15(6):809–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yücel ÖB, Pazır Y, Kadıoğlu A. Penile prosthesis implantation in priapism. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6(2):310–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Martínez-Salamanca JI, Mueller A, Moncada I, Carballido J, Mulhall JP. Penile prosthesis surgery in patients with corporal fibrosis: a state of the art review. J Sex Med. 2011;8(7):1880–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wilson SK. Reimplantation of inflatable penile prosthesis into scarred corporeal bodies. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15(Suppl. 5):S125–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Larsen EH, Gasser TC, Bruskewitz RC. Fibrosis of corpus cavernosum after intracavernous injection of phentolamine/papaverine. J Urol. 1987;137:292–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Çayan S, Aşcı R, Efesoy O, et al. 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;16:1092–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Osmonov D, Christopher AN, Blecher GA, et al. Clinical Recommendations from the European Society for Sexual Medicine Exploring Partner Expectations, Satisfaction in Male and Phalloplasty Cohorts, the Impact of Penile Length, Girth and Implant Type, Reservoir Placement, and the Influence of Comorbidities and Social Circumstances. J Sex Med. 2020;17:210–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Trost LW, Baum N, Hellstrom WJG. Managing the difficult penile prosthesis patient. J Sex Med. 2013;10:893–907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ulloa EW, Silberbogen AK, Brown K. Preoperative psychosocial evaluation of penile prosthesis candidates. Am J Mens Health. 2008;2(1):68–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Pisano F, Falcone M, Abbona A, Oderda M, Soria F, Peraldo F, Marson F, Barale M, Fiorito C, Gurioli A, Frea B, Gontero P. The importance of psychosexual counselling in the re-establishment of organic and erotic functions after penile prosthesis implantation. Int J Impot Res. 2015;27(5):197–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Vittori-Longhi E, Franco G, Colombo F. Psychosexual counseling in andrological surgery. Cham: Springer; 2019.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Penile prosthesis information form, 2008. Available online: http://www.smsna.org/V1/images/SMSNAIPP-policy-ws.pdf.

  57. Kovac JR. Informed consent for penile prosthesis surgery. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(Suppl 5):S881–2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Chung E. Penile prosthesis implant: scientific advances and technological innovations over the last four decades. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(1):37–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Chung E, Solomon M, DeYoung L, Brock GB. Comparison between AMS 700™ CX and Coloplast™ Titan inflatable penile prosthesis for Peyronie’s disease treatment and remodeling: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med. 2013;10(11):2855–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Mulcahy JJ, Cleves M, Salem EA. Upsizing of inflatable penile implant cylinders in patients with corporal fibrosis. J Sex Med. 2006;3(4):736–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR 2nd. Ultrex cylinders: problems with uncontrolled lengthening (the S-shaped deformity). J Urol. 1996;155(1):135–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Mulcahy JJ, Wilson SK. Current use of penile implants in erectile dysfunction. Curr Urol Rep. 2006;7(6):485–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Negro CL, Paradiso M, Rocca A, Bardari F. Implantation of AMS 700 LGX penile prosthesis preserves penile length without the need for penile lengthening procedures. Asian J Androl. 2016;18:114–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Barboglio Romo P, Chikkatur HP, Beldona S, Yi Y, Bruns TM, et al. Comparative evaluation of physical characteristics of different inflatable penile prostheses. Scand J Urol. 2017;51:420–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Wallen JJ, Madiraju SK, Wang R, Henry GD. Implementation of length expanding inflatable penile prosthesis is not sufficient to prevent postsurgical penile shortening. Asian J Androl. 2019;21:98–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Dhabuwala C, Sheth S, Zamzow B. Infection rates of rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan Coloplast penile implants. Comparison with Inhibizone-impregnated AMS penile implants. J Sex Med. 2011;8(1):315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Wallen JJ, Barrera EV, Ge L, et al. Biomechanical comparison of inflatable penile implants: a cadaveric pilot study. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1034–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Ralph DJ, Garaffa G, Muneer A, Freeman A, Rees R, Christopher AN, Minhas S. The immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis for acute ischaemic priapism. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):1033–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Habous M, Tealab A, Farag M, Soliman T, Williamson B, Mahmoud S, Elserafy A, Mekawi Z, Remeah A, Nassar M, Laban O, Abdelwahab O, Binsaleh S, Giona S, Ralph D, Mulhall J. Malleable penile implant is an effective therapeutic option in men with Peyronie’s disease and erectile dysfunction. Sex Med. 2018;6(1):24–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Andrology Division, Department of Urology, NU Hospitals, Bangalore, India

    Pramod Krishnappa

  2. Lyx Institute of Urology, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain

    Esaú Fernández-Pascual & Juan Ignacio Martinez-Salamanca

  3. Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain

    Esaú Fernández-Pascual

  4. Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain

    Juan Ignacio Martinez-Salamanca

Authors
  1. Pramod Krishnappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esaú Fernández-Pascual
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Ignacio Martinez-Salamanca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Division, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil

    Eduardo P. Miranda

  2. Urology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    John P. Mulhall

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Krishnappa, P., Fernández-Pascual, E., Martinez-Salamanca, J.I. (2022). Patient and Device Selection. In: Miranda, E.P., Mulhall, J.P. (eds) Penile Implant Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82363-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82363-4_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-82362-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-82363-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation