Innovating Incrementally: Development of the Modern Inflatable Penile Prosthesis
- 45 Downloads
Purpose of Review
The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) was introduced in 1973. Since that time, the fundamental design of the IPP has not changed, but numerous improvements to the device, surgery, and peri-operative management have resulted in a modern IPP with excellent reliability, infection control, safety profile, and user experience.
We describe important modifications to the IPP and review available data assessing the impact of these changes. We also discuss possible changes to the IPP that would result in continued improvement.
Since its introduction in 1973, changes to the penile prosthesis have resulted in significant improvements in reliability, infection control, safety, and user experience. Design changes are anticipated to continue, resulting in a better and more versatile penile prosthesis.
KeywordsPenile implant Penis prosthesis Prosthesis Penile Prostheses and implants
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Mark Ehlers, Benjamin McCormick, R. Matthew Coward, and Bradley D. Figler each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 4.Lewis RW. Long-term results of penile prosthetic implants. Urol Clin N Am. 1995;22(4):847–56.Google Scholar
- 6.Enickas M, Kessler R, Kabalin JN. Long-term experience with controlled expansion cylinders in the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis and comparison with earlier versions of the Scott inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1994;44(3):400–3.Google Scholar
- 12.Ohl DA, Brock G, Ralph D, Bogache W, Jones LR, Munarriz R, et al. Prospective evaluation of patient satisfaction, and surgeon and patient trainer assessment of the coloplast titan one touch release three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2012;9(9):2467–74.Google Scholar
- 13.Lindeborg L, Fode M, Fahrenkrug L, Sønksen J. Satisfaction and complications with the Titan® one-touch release penile implant. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2014;48(1):105–9.Google Scholar
- 14.O’Rourke TK Jr, et al. Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(Suppl 5):S832–48.Google Scholar
- 16.• Tausch TJ, et al. Intraoperative decision-making for precise penile straightening during inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Urology. 2015;86(5):1048–52. This is one center’s approach to managing a patient with Peyronie’s Disease using a combination of minimally invasive approaches. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Knoll LD, Henry G, Culkin D, Ohl DA, Otheguy J, Shabsigh R, et al. SURGERY: physician and patient satisfaction with the new AMS 700 Momentary Squeeze inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2009;6(6):1773–8.Google Scholar
- 29.Karpman E, Brant WO, Kansas B, Bella AJ, Jones LRA, Eisenhart E, et al. Reservoir alternate surgical implantation technique: preliminary outcomes of initial PROPPER study of low profile or spherical reservoir implantation in submuscular location or traditional prevesical space. J Urol. 2015;193(1):239–44.Google Scholar
- 32.•• Pagliara T, et al. Extended experience with high submuscular placement of urological prosthetic balloons and reservoirs: refined technique for optimal outcomes. Urol Pract. 2018;5(4):293–8. High submuscular placement of an IPP reservoir is safe, effective, and easy to perform. Google Scholar
- 33.• Kocjancic E, Iacovelli V. Penile prostheses. Clinics in Plastic Surgery. 2018. Excellent summary of penile prosthetics in transgender patients. Google Scholar
- 35.•• Chen J, et al. 891: A Novel Flexible Magnetic Penile Prosthesis. J Urol. 2004;171(4):236 A novel approach to the penile prosthesis. Google Scholar
- 36.Robles-Torres JI, et al. PD40-04 semiautomatic inflatable electronic penile implant prototype. J Urol. 2018;199(4):e804–5.Google Scholar