Surgical Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction

  • Drogo K. MontagueEmail author
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)


Surgical treatment for organic erectile dysfunction (ED) includes penile arterial revascularization, surgery for veno-occlusive dysfunction, and penile prosthesis implantation. In the 2005 American Urological Association Erectile Dysfunction Guidelines, surgery for veno-occlusive dysfunction was not recommended, and evidence to demonstrate efficacy for penile arterial revascularization was deemed to be lacking.

When medical therapy for ED in the form of the type 5 phosphodiesterase inhibitors fails, it is now appropriate to discuss the remaining nonsurgical options, vacuum erection devices, intraurethral medications, and penile injection therapy along with penile prosthesis implantation. Men who want to proceed next with penile prosthesis implantation should be allowed to do so.

Notable advances in penile prosthesis implantation in recent years include girth- and length-expanding penile cylinders, prostheses with antibiotic and other coatings to reduce infections, and continuous design improvements to improve device survival.


Erectile Dysfunction Corpus Cavernosa American Urologic Association Penile Prosthesis Penile Length 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence: use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2:80–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Virag R. Intracavernous injection of papaverine for erectile failure. Letter to the editor. Lancet. 1982;2:938.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldstein I, Lue TF, Padma-Nathan H, Rosen RC, Steers WD, Wicker PA. Oral sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 1998;338: 1397–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michal V, Kramar R, Pospichal J, et al. Direct arterial anastomosis to the cavernous body in the treatment of erectile impotence. Czech Rozhledy Chir. 1973; 52:587.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Virag R, Zwang G, Dermange H, et al. Vasculogenic impotence: a review of 92 cases with 54 surgical operations. Vasc Surg. 1981;15:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McDougal WS, Jeffery R. Microscopic penile revascularization. J Urol. 1983;129:517.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knoll LD. Penile dorsal vein arterialization in managing venogenic impotence. Tech Urol. 1995;1:157–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sharlip ID. The incredible results of penile vascular surgery. Int J Impot Res. 1991;3:1.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Montague DK, Jarow JP, Broderick GA, et al. Chapter 1: The management of erectile dysfunction: an AUA update. J Urol. 2005;174:230–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zermann DH, Kutzenberger J, Sauerwein D, Schubert J, Loeffler U. Penile prosthetic surgery in neurologically impaired patients: long-term followup. J Urol. 2006;175:1041–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montague DK, Lakin MM. Early experience with the controlled girth and length expanding cylinder of the American Medical Systems Ultrex penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1992;148:1444–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milbank AJ, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, et al. Mechanical failure of the American Medical Systems Ultrex inflatable penile prosthesis: before and after 1993 structural modification. J Urol. 2002;167: 2502–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk 2nd JR. Ultrex cylinders: problems with uncontrolled lengthening (the S-shaped deformity). J Urol. 1996;155:135–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montague DK, Angermeier KW. Cylinder sizing: less is more. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15 Suppl 5:S132–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Ingleright BJ. AMS 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation in men with Peyronie’s disease: comparison of CX and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol. 1996;156: 1633–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carbone Jr DJ, Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Montague DK. Management of severe corporeal fibrosis with implantation of prosthesis via a transverse scrotal approach. J Urol. 1998;159:125–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Savoie M, Kim SS, Soloway MS. A prospective study measuring penile length in men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169: 1462–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mulhall JP. Penile length changes after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2005;96:472–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gontero P, Di Marco M, Giubilei G, et al. A pilot phase-II prospective study to test the ‘efficacy’ and tolerability of a penile-extender device in the treatment of ‘short penis’. BJU Int. 2009;103:793–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carson 3rd CC. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol. 2004;171:1611–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carson CC. Initial success with AMS 700 series inflatable penile prosthesis with Inhibizone antibiotic surface treatment: a retrospective review of revision cases incidence and comparative results versus non-treated devices. J Urol. 2004;171:S894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carson 3rd CC, Mulcahy JJ, Harsch MR. Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of followup. J Urol. 2011;185:614–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wolter CE, Hellstrom WJ. The hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. J Sex Med. 2004;1:221–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Furlow WL. The current status of the inflatable penile prosthesis in the management of impotence: Mayo Clinic experience updated. J Urol. 1978; 119:363–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2,384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007;4: 1074–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Montague DK, Barada JH, Belker AM, et al. Clinical guidelines panel on erectile dysfunction: summary report on the treatment of organic erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 1996;156:2007–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk 2nd JR. Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced Mentor Alpha I penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1999; 162:715–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Ingleright BJ, Montague DK. Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700 series inflatable penile prostheses: comparison of CX/CXM and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol. 1997;158:1400–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dhar NB, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700CX/CXM inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2006;176: 2599–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim DS, Yang KM, Chung HJ, Choi HM, Choi YD, Choi HK. AMS 700CX/CXM inflatable penile prosthesis has high mechanical reliability at long-term follow-up. J Sex Med. 2010;7:2602–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Genitourinary ReconstructionGlickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations