Penile Prostheses

  • John J. Mulcahy


With the introduction of penile prostheses in 1973, interest in erectile dysfunction (ED) increased greatly. Prior to that time, no effective treatments were available and the topic was rarely discussed. Changing sexual customs, beginning in late 1960s, provided a more open forum for discussion and more patients were willing to seek treatment for this common problem. Research on the anatomy and physiology of erections and ED soon followed; investigators sought forms of therapy that were less aggressive and invasive than the surgical placement of prosthetic devices. Highly effective oral, intraurethral, and intracavernous medications have since been marketed, and vacuum erection devices have proven safe, effective, and acceptable to many patients. The growing number of patients opting to treat their impotence problem has, for the most part, selected a less aggressive form of treatment, ie medications and vacuum devices. Penile implant sales, however, have remained stable over the past decade. These devices have provided a predictable and reliable means of restoring erections for many patients, especially for those in whom less invasive treatments have not been effective or in whom scar tissue in the penis has not permitted a satisfactory result with other alternatives.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Mulcahy JJ: Update: penile prostheses. Contemp Urol 1994, 6: 15–21.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Knoll LD: Use of penile prosthetic implants in patients with penile fibrosis. Urol Clin North Am 1995, 22: 847–863.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eigner EB, Kabalin JN, Dessler R: Penile implants in the treatment of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol 1991, 145: 69–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carson CC: Infections in genitourinary prostheses. Urol Clin North Am 1989, 16: 139–147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wahle GW, Mulcahy JJ: Ventral penile approach in unitary component penile prosthesis placement. J Urol 1993, 149: 537–538.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fishman IJ, Scott FB, Selim A, et al.: The rescue procedure: an alternative for managing an infected penile prosthesis. Contemp Urol 1997, 9:73–80.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilson SK, Delk JR: A new treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Uro11994, 152:1121–1123.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mulcahy JJ, Rowland RG: Tunica wedge excision to correct penile curvature associated with the inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol 1987, 138: 63–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ball TP: Surgical repair of penile “SST” deformity. Urology 1980, 15: 603–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ: The penile prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Uro11996, 155: 155–157.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teloken C, Souto JC, DaRos C, et aL: Prosthetic penile infection: rescue procedure with rifamycin. J Urol 1992, 148: 1905–1906.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mulcahy JJ: Distal corporoplasty for lateral extrusion of penile prosthesis cylinders. J Urol 1999, 161: 193–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gregory JC, Purcell MH, Standeven J: The inflatable penile prosthesis: failure of rear tip extenders in reducing the incidence of cylinder leakage. J Urol 1984, 131: 668–669.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, et al.: Long term mechanical reliability of AMS 700 series inflatable penile protheses: comparison of CX/CXM and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol 1997, 158:1400–1402.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kabalin JN, Kuo JC: Long term follow-up and patient satisfaction with the Dynaflex self-contained inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol 1997, 158: 456–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Grovier FE: Efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700 CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long term multicenter study. J Urol 2000, 164: 376–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fallon B, Ghanem H: Sexual performance and satisfaction with penile prostheses in impotence of various etiologies. Int J Impot Res 1990, 2: 35–42.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garber BB: Mentor Alpha-1 penile prosthesis: patient satisfaction and device reliability. Urology 1994, 43: 214–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McLaren RH, Barrett DM: Patient and partner satisfaction with the AMS 700 penile prosthesis. J Urol 1992, 147: 62–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • John J. Mulcahy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations