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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence: use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2:80–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharlip ID. The incredible results of penile vascular surgery. Int J Impot Res. 1991;3:1.Google Scholar
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Wolter CE, Hellstrom WJ. The hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. J Sex Med. 2004;1:221–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
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