Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Systematic Review of Partner Satisfaction After Penile Prosthesis with Special Emphasis on LGBTQ + Populations

  • Men’s Health (R Carrion, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Despite the current surgical advances and patients’ satisfactions after penile prosthesis (PP) implantation, there has been paucity of data on reported partner satisfaction and their quality-of-life (QoL). Our objective was to summarize the current literature on partner satisfaction for both heterosexual and non-heterosexual populations, respectively. We specifically conducted a systematic review according to the Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards, and stratified studies into three tiers by methodological rigor.

Recent Findings

After an initial search of 172 articles, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria for the final review: 30 for heterosexual partner satisfaction, and 3 for LGBTQ patient satisfaction were included due to lack of published literature on partner satisfaction for LGBTQ patients. For heterosexual partner satisfaction, 10 studies were classified as Tier 1, 11 studies were classified as Tier 2, and 9 studies were classified as Tier 3. From an initial search of 13 records, three studies consisting of 272 patients met the inclusion criteria for our LGBTQ review. Across all the tiers, studies noted satisfaction rates between 50 and 90% and improved satisfaction and sexual QoL metrics compared to pre-surgery rates. That said, partner satisfaction rates were also consistently lower than patient satisfaction rates.

Summary

Although the range of evidence quality varies, the available literature suggests significant improvements in and relatively high rates of partner satisfaction after PP implantation. Given the diversity of study designs and widespread use of non-validated or non-specific questionnaires in the current literature, future research should focus on prospective studies and/or data collection using validated, PP-specific questionnaires.

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

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •   Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Lee DJ, Najari BB, Davison WL, et al. Trends in the utilization of penile prostheses in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in the United States. J Sex Med. 2015;12(7):1638–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bertero EB, Antunes DL. Surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction. Sex Med Rev. 2015;3(4):316–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/smrj.60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1997;49(6):822–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00238-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. 11 Requests for copies of the EDITS should be directed to S.E. Althof Urology. 1999;53(4):793–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00582-2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. • Akakpo W, Pineda MA, Burnett AL. Critical analysis of satisfaction assessment after penile prosthesis surgery. Sex Med Rev. 2017;5(2):244–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.01.001. This review not only provides a comprehensive review of patient satisfaction after penile prosthesis, but also addresses the types of questionnaires used in the available literature.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. •• Barton GJ, Carlos EC, Lentz AC. Sexual quality of life and satisfaction with penile prostheses. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7(1):178–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.10.003. This review, published in 2018, provides an in-depth review of the available literature regarding sexual quality-of-life satisfaction in heterosexual patients after penile prosthesis.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cameron A, Tomlin M. The effect of male erectile dysfunction on the psychosocial, relationship, and sexual characteristics of heterosexual women in the United States. J Sex Marital Ther. 2007;33(2):135–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230601098464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang ST, Jiann BP. Assessing satisfaction in men and their female partners after treatment with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2013;25(5):178–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2013.8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosen R, Cappelleri J, Smith M, Lipsky J, Peña B. Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 1999;11(6):319–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900472.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bozkurt IH, Arslan B, Kozacioglu Z, et al. Does the etiology affect the outcome and satisfaction rates of penile prosthesis implantation surgery? Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2014;30(11):570–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2014.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Özbay E, Salar R, Oncel HF. Does two-piece PPI provide improvement in patient-partner quality of life? Arch Ital Urol Androl Organo Uff Soc Ital Ecogr Urol E Nefrol. 2021;93(2):237–40. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.2.237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. • Awwad AA, Seif AFA, Farag MAF, GamalEl Din SF, Khalil RY. Sexual functions of females married to males with semi-rigid penile implant: a cross-sectional study. Urologia. 2019;86(4):197–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0391560319854846. This study was one of the only studies to use a female-specific questionnaire to analyze female partner satisfaction and sexual function after their partners received penile prosthesis surgery.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bozkurt IH, Arslan B, Yonguc T, et al. Patient and partner outcome of inflatable and semi-rigid penile prosthesis in a single institution. Int Braz J Urol Off J Braz Soc Urol. 2015;41(3):535–41. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vakalopoulos I, Kampantais S, Ioannidis S, et al. High patient satisfaction after inflatable penile prostheses implantation correlates with female partner satisfaction. J Sex Med. 2013;10(11):2774–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pillay B, Moon D, Love C, et al. Quality of life, psychological functioning, and treatment satisfaction of men who have undergone penile prosthesis surgery following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2017;14(12):1612–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Paranhos M, Andrade E, Antunes AA, Barbieri ALN, Claro JA, Srougi M. Penile prosthesis implantation in an academic institution in Latin America. Int Braz J Urol Off J Braz Soc Urol. 2010;36(5):591–601. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-55382010000500009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Palmisano F, Boeri L, Ievoli R, et al. Ten-year experience with penile prosthetic surgery for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: outcomes of a tertiary referral center and predictors of early prosthetic infection. Asian J Androl. 2021;24(1):32–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_27_21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Salama N. Satisfaction with the malleable penile prosthesis among couples from the Middle East–is it different from that reported elsewhere? Int J Impot Res. 2004;16(2):175–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901150.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, et al. Patient and partner satisfaction after AMS inflatable penile prosthesis implant. J Sex Med. 2010;7(1 Pt 1):304–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01499.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chiang HS, Wu CC, Wen TC. 10 years of experience with penile prosthesis implantation in Taiwanese patients. J Urol. 2000;163(2):476–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Simsek A, Kucuktopcu O, Ozgor F, et al. Self and partner satisfaction rates after 3 part inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Arch Ital Urol Androl Organo Uff Soc Ital Ecogr Urol E Nefrol. 2014;86(3):219–21. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2014.3.219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ussher JM, Perz J, Rose D, Kellett A, Dowsett G. Sexual rehabilitation after prostate cancer through assistive aids: a comparison of gay/bisexual and heterosexual men. J Sex Res. 2019;56(7):854–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1476444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Neuville P, Morel-Journel N, Cabelguenne D, Ruffion A, Paparel P, Terrier JE. First outcomes of the ZSI 475 FtM, a specific prosthesis designed for phalloplasty. J Sex Med. 2019;16(2):316–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.11.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Falcone M, Garaffa G, Gillo A, Dente D, Christopher AN, Ralph DJ. Outcomes of inflatable penile prosthesis insertion in 247 patients completing female to male gender reassignment surgery. BJU Int. 2018;121(1):139–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14027.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Levine LA, Becher E, Bella A, et al. Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the international consultation on sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2016;13(4):489–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Manfredi C, Fortier É, Faix A, Martínez-Salamanca JI. Penile implant surgery satisfaction assessment. J Sex Med. 2021;18(5):868–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Di Pierro GB, Lemma A, Di Lascio G, et al. Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: a propensity score-matched comparison. Andrologia. 2021;53(11): e14240. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.14240.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Caraceni E, Utizi L. A questionnaire for the evaluation of quality of life after penile prosthesis implant: Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP). J Sex Med. 2014;11(4):1005–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Salter CA, Bach PV, Jenkins L, et al. Development and validation of the Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI). J Sex Med. 2021;18(9):1641–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.06.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Goldstone SE. The ups and downs of gay sex after prostate cancer treatment. J Gay Lesbian Psychother. 2005;9(1–2):43–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J236v09n01_04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Armaan Singh & Sean W. Hou

  2. Department of Surgery, Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    Caleb A. Cooper & Omer A. Raheem

Authors
  1. Armaan Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caleb A. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sean W. Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Omer A. Raheem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omer A. Raheem.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Men’s Health

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, A., Cooper, C.A., Hou, S.W. et al. A Systematic Review of Partner Satisfaction After Penile Prosthesis with Special Emphasis on LGBTQ + Populations. Curr Urol Rep 24, 105–115 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01126-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01126-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation