Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Complex and Previously Failed Settings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Textbook of Male Genitourethral Reconstruction

Abstract

The most common reasons for revision surgery of penile prostheses include mechanical failure, infection and patient dissatisfaction. While revisions for mechanical failure and patient dissatisfaction are relatively routine surgical procedures, penile prosthesis implantation in previously failed settings is daunting, even for the experienced implanter. The surgical planes are altered and obliterated by scar. To maximize success, specialized instruments, downsized implants and lots of experience are necessities. Even experienced implanters without these assets have a high complication rate. Even if a surgical victory is achieved for the surgeon, the patient may be unhappy about his loss of length. This chapter is meant as a guide to the focused implanter for navigating the tricky pathways of redo of multi component prosthetics. We hope to help the reader prevent mistakes and reward realistic patient expectations in this difficult surgery on discouraged patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1074–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Henry GD, Kansal NS, Callaway M, Grigsby T, Henderson J, Noble J, et al. Centers of excellence concept and penile prostheses: an outcome analysis. J Urol. 2009;181:1264–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kava BR, Yang Y, Soloway CT. Efficacy and patient satisfaction associated with penile prosthesis revision surgery. J Sex Med. 2007;4:509–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Montorsi F, Rigatti P, Carmignani G, Corbu C, Campo B, Ordesi G, et al. AMS three-piece inflatable implants for erectile dysfunction: a long-term multi-institutional study in 200 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2000;37:50–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tiefer L, Moss S, Melman A. Follow-up of patients and partners experiencing penile prosthesis malfunction and corrective surgery. J Sex Marital Ther. 1991 Summer;17:113–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Henry GD, Donatucci CF, Conners W, et al. An outcomes analysis of over 200 revision surgeries for penile prosthesis implantation: a multicenter study. J Sex Med. 2012;9:309–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd, et al. Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2005;173:89–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Garber BB, Khurgin JL, Stember DS, Perito PE. Pseudo-malfunction of the coloplast titan inflatable penile prosthesis one-touch release pump. Urology. 2014;84:857–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ. The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1996;155:155–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd. Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol. 1995;153:659–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carson CC 3rd. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol. 2004;171:1611–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wolter CE, Hellstrom WJ. The hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis: 1-year experience. J Sex Med. 2004;1:221–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson SK, Zumbe J, Henry GD, Salem EA, Delk JR, Cleves MA. Infection reduction using antibiotic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 2007;70:337–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Silverstein AD, Henry GD, Evans B, Pasmore M, Simmons CJ, Donatucci CF. Biofilm formation on clinically noninfected penile prostheses. J Urol. 2006;176:1008–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kava BR, Kanagarajah P, Ayyathurai R. Contemporary revision penile prosthesis surgery is not associated with a high risk of implant colonization or infection: a single-surgeon series. J Sex Med. 2011;8:1540–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Montgomery BD, Lomas DJ, Ziegelmann MJ, Trost LW. Infection risk of undergoing multiple penile prostheses: an analysis of referred patient surgical histories. Int J Impot Res. 2018;30:147–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Levine LA, Becher EF, Bella AJ, et al. Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the international consultation on sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2016;13:489–518.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mulcahy JJ. The prevention and management of noninfectious complications of penile implants. Sex Med Rev. 2015;3:203–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Mulcahy JJ, Cleves M, Salem EA. Upsizing of inflatable penile implant cylinders in patients with corporal fibrosis. J Sex Med. 2006;3:736–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sellers T, Dineen M, Salem EA, Wilson SK. Vacuum preparation, optimization of cylinder length and postoperative daily inflation reduces complaints of shortened penile length following implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis. Adv Sex Med. 2013;3:14–8.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Martinez-Salamanca JI, Mueller A, Moncada I, Carballido J, Mulhall JP. Penile prosthesis surgery in patients with corporal fibrosis: a state of the art review. J Sex Med. 2011;8:1880–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson SK. Reimplantation of inflatable penile prosthesis into scarred corporeal bodies. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15(Suppl 5):S125–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gasser TC, Larsen EH, Bruskewitz RG. Penile prosthesis reimplantation. J Urol. 1987;137:46–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rajpurkar A, Li H, Dhabuwala CB. Penile implant success in patients with corporal fibrosis using multiple incisions and minimal scar tissue excision. Urology. 1999;54:145–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. George VK, Shah GS, Mills R, Dhabuwala CB. The management of extensive penile fibrosis: a new technique of ‘minimal scar-tissue excision’. Br J Urol. 1996;77:282–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shaeer O, Shaeer A. Corporoscopic excavation of the fibrosed corpora cavernosa for penile prosethesis implantation: optical corporotomy and trans-corporeal resection, Shaeer’s technique. J Sex Med. 2007;4:218–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilson SK. Rear tip extender sling: a quick and easy repair for crural perforation. J Sex Med. 2010;7:1052–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fuchs JS, Shakir N, McKibben MJ, Mathur S, Teeple S, Scott JM, et al. Penoscrotal decompression-promising new treatment paradigm for refractory ischemic priapism. J Sex Med. 2018;15(5):797–802.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ralph DJ, Borley NC, Allen C, et al. The use of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients presenting with priapism. BJU Int. 2010;106:1714–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yucel OB, Pazir Y, Kadioglu A. Penile prosthesis implantation in priapism. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:310–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rees RW, Kalsi J, Minhas S, Peters J, Kell P, Ralph DJ. The management of low-flow priapism with the immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis. BJU Int. 2002;90:893–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ralph DJ, Garaffa G, Muneer A, et al. The immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis for acute ischaemic priapism. Eur Urol. 2009;56:1033–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rossello Barbara M, Carrion H. Cavernotomy. Arch Esp Urol. 1991;44:185–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mooreville M, Adrian S, Delk JR 2nd, Wilson SK. Implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis in patients with severe corporeal fibrosis: introduction of a new penile cavernotome. J Urol. 1999;162:2054–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Knoll LD. Use of penile prosthetic implants in patients with penile fibrosis. Urol Clin North Am. 1995;22:857–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Herschorn S, Ordorica RC. Penile prosthesis insertion with corporeal reconstruction with synthetic vascular graft material. J Urol. 1995;154:80–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lopes EJ, Santos TC, Jacobino M. Bovine pericardium in penile prosthesis reimplantation. Int Braz J Urol. 2007;33:74–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Palese MA, Burnett AL. Corporoplasty using pericardium allograft (tutoplast) with complex penile prosthesis surgery. Urology. 2001;58:1049–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lopes EJ, Kuwano AY, Guimaraes AN, Flores JP, Jacobino MA. Corporoplasty using bovine pericardium grafts in complex penile prosthesis implantation surgery. Int Braz J Urol. 2009;35:49–53; discussion -5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tran VQ, Lesser TF, Kim DH, Aboseif SR. Penile corporeal reconstruction during difficult placement of a penile prosthesis. Adv Urol. 2008:370947.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pathak AS, Chang JH, Parekh AR, Aboseif SR. Use of rectus fascia graft for corporeal reconstruction during placement of penile implant. Urology. 2005;65:1198–201.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kim ED, McVary KT. Long-term followup of treatment of Peyronie’s disease with plaque incision, carbon dioxide laser plaque ablation and placement of a deep dorsal vein patch graft. J Urol. 1995;153:1843–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Melman A, Holland TF. Evaluation of the dermal graft inlay technique for the surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 1978;120:421–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hatzichristodoulou G, Gschwend JE, Lahme S. Surgical therapy of Peyronie’s disease by partial plaque excision and grafting with collagen fleece: feasibility study of a new technique. Int J Impot Res. 2013;25:183–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kohler TS, Gupta NK, Wilson SK. Wilson’s pearls, perils and pitfalls of penile prosthesis surgery. Fort Smith: Calvert McBride Publishers; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cefalu CA, Deng X, Zhao LC, Scott JF, Mehta S, Morey AF. Safety of the “drain and retain” option for defunctionalized urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs during artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery: 5-year experience. Urology. 2013;82:1436–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mulcahy JJ. Distal corporoplasty for lateral extrusion of penile prosthesis cylinders. J Urol. 1999;161:193–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ball TP Jr. Surgical repair of penile “SST” deformity. Urology. 1980;15:603–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ziegelmann MJ, Alom M, Bole R, Kohler T, Trost L. Modified glanulopexy technique for supersonic transporter deformity and glanular hypermobility in men with penile prostheses. J Sex Med. 2018;15:914–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Division of Urology, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Sevann Helo

  2. St Joseph Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Jonathan Clavell-Hernandez

  3. Institute for Urologic Excellence, La Quinta, CA, USA

    Steven K. Wilson

  4. Mayo Clinic, Department of Urology, Rochester, MN, USA

    Tobias S. Köhler

Authors
  1. Sevann Helo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Clavell-Hernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven K. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tobias S. Köhler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias S. Köhler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Francisco E. Martins

  2. Kulkarni Reconstructive Urology Center, Pune, India

    Sanjay B. Kulkarni

  3. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Tobias S. Köhler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Helo, S., Clavell-Hernandez, J., Wilson, S.K., Köhler, T.S. (2020). Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Complex and Previously Failed Settings. In: Martins, F.E., Kulkarni, S.B., Köhler, T.S. (eds) Textbook of Male Genitourethral Reconstruction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21447-0_46

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21447-0_46

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-21446-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-21447-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation