Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment for male erectile dysfunction: clinical outcomes and lessons learnt after 955 procedures

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED) over 3 decades in a centre of excellence.

Methods

A total of 955 penile prostheses were implanted between June 1981 and June 2010. The mean age of the men was 53.2 (28–80) years, and the mean follow-up was 76 (12–355) months. A total of 771 men had primary implants. The most common implant was Ultrex cylinder (54 %), and the main cause of ED was organic (32 %).

Results

Primary implants showed higher rate of intra-operative complications than revision surgery (3.5 vs. 0.1 %) (p < 0.05). Prosthesis infection occurred in 0.8 % and equal incidence between diabetic and pelvic trauma patients. The average time to prosthetic revision was 102 (30–210) months. Kaplan–Meier estimates of overall penile prosthesis survival at 5 and 10 years were around 90.8 and 85.0 %. The most common mechanical failures were fluid loss (75 %). The majority of men were satisfied with the surgical outcomes, and 90 % of men would undergo penile prosthesis implant again.

Conclusions

Penile prosthesis surgery is a safe and durable treatment option for male ED. Strict adherence to antimicrobial prophylaxis and surgical practice is paramount to ensure low complication rates and high patient satisfaction rate.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Montorsi F, Adaikan G, Becher E et al (2010) Summary of the recommendations on sexual dysfunction in men. J Sex Med 7:3572–3588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Milbank AJ, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Worley SE (2002) Mechanical failure of the American Medical Systems Ultrex inflatable penile prosthesis: before and after 1993 structural modification. J Urol 167:2502–2506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Woodworth BE, Carson CC, Webster GD (1991) Inflatable penile prosthesis: effect of device modification on functional longevity. Urology 38:533–536

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Montague DK (2005) Penile prosthesis implantation for end-stage erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol 7:S51–S57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Henry GD (2009) Historical review of penile prosthesis design and surgical techniques: Part 1 of a three-part review series on penile prosthetic surgery. J Sex Med 6:675–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sadeghi-Nejad H (2007) Penile prosthesis surgery: a review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med 4:269–309

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McDonnell JD et al (2003) Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology 62:918–921

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP (2005) Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int 97:129–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilson SK (2008) Preoperative pearls. In: Wilson SK (ed) Pearls, perils and pitfalls of prosthetic urology: a troubleshooting manual for physicians. 1st edn. American Medical Systems. MN, USA, pp 13–32

  11. Henry GD, Kansal NS, Callaway M, Grisby T et al (2009) Centers of excellence concept and penile prostheses: an outcome analysis. J Urol 181:1264–1268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Carson CC (2004) Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol 171:1611–1614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Abouassaly R, Angermeier KW, Montague DK (2006) Risk of infection with an antibiotics coated penile prosthesis at device replacement for mechanical failure. J Urol 176:2471–2473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR et al (2004) Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: a multicentre study. J Urol 172:153–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM (2001) Penile prosthesis infections. Int J Imp Res 13:326–328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kimoto Y, Iwatsubo E (1994) Penile prostheses for the management of the neuropathic bladder and sexual dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients: long term follow up. Paraplegia 32:336–339

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fallon B, Ghanem H (1989) Infected penile prosthesis: incidence and outcomes. Int J Impot Res 1:175–180

    Google Scholar 

  18. Abouassaly R, Montague DK (2004) Penile prosthesis coating and the reduction of postoperative infection. Curr Urol Rep 5:460–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilson SK, Zumbe J, Henry GD et al (2007) Infection reduction using antibiotic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 70:337–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mulcahy JJ, Carson CC III (2011) Long-term infection rates in diabetic patients implanted with antibiotic-impregnated versus nonimpregnated inflatable penile prostheses: 7-year outcomes. Eur Urol 60:167–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dhar NB, Angermeier KW, Montague DK (2006) Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700CX/CXM inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol 176:2599–2601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 158:1400–1404

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Montague DK (2007) Penile prosthesis implantation: size matters. Eur Urol 51:887–888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brinkman MJ, Henry GD, Wilson SK et al (2005) A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses for satisfaction. J Urol 174:253–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich Rd, Brisbane, QLD, 4103, Australia

    E. Chung, C. T. Van, I. Wilson & R. A. Cartmill

Authors
  1. E. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. T. Van
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. A. Cartmill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Chung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chung, E., Van, C.T., Wilson, I. et al. Penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment for male erectile dysfunction: clinical outcomes and lessons learnt after 955 procedures. World J Urol 31, 591–595 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0859-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0859-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation