Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Jan 31;13(1):165-184.
doi: 10.21037/tau-22-741. Epub 2024 Jan 18.

Recent technological development of penile prosthesis: a literature review

Jay Patel  1 , Basil Zakkar  2 , Michael Polchert  3 , Jacob Tannenbaum  3 , Brian Dick  4 , Omer Raheem  5
Affiliations
Review

Recent technological development of penile prosthesis: a literature review

Jay Patel et al. Transl Androl Urol. .

Abstract

Background and objective: In contemporary Urology, the gold standard for treatment of erectile dysfunction refractory to medical therapy has been implantation with a penile prosthesis. The past 40 years has witnessed evolutions in technology and surgical techniques, which have led to increased patient satisfaction rates and decreased complication and infection rates. This review is an update to a prior review article that evaluates these advancements in the context of patient satisfaction and different rates of complications following surgeries. In addition, the review compares malleable and inflatable prostheses with regard to infection rate, mechanical failure rate, and erosion rate.

Methods: A literature search was conducted using Medline and Google Scholar to examine papers from 1973 to the present day. Keywords, such as, "penile prosthesis surgery", "malleable penile prosthesis", "inflatable penile prosthesis", "two-piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP)", and "three-piece IPP" were utilized during the search. A total of 76 papers were included, and all were in English.

Key content and findings: Studies on the latest models of each of the three prostheses (malleable, two-piece IPP, three-piece IPP) revealed patient satisfaction ratings at or above 75%. Both types of IPPs were associated with greater satisfaction and lower erosion rates while malleable prostheses were associated with lower mechanical failure rates. Although no significant differences in infection rates were noted between the prosthesis types, a history of diabetes, obesity, and smoking were predictive of infection events.

Conclusions: The three-piece IPP, if indicated for a suitable patient, is generally accepted as the best type of prosthesis given its biological mimicry to an erect human penis.

Keywords: Penile prosthesis surgery; inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP); malleable penile prosthesis; penile implants.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tau.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tau-22-741/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Developmental milestones of modern penile prostheses. IPP, inflatable penile prosthesis; AMS, American Medical Systems; BSCI, Boston Scientific Corporation; ZSI, Zephyr Surgical Implants.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Coloplast Titan. Source: Coloplast (with permission).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Source: Coloplast (with permission).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Rigicon Infla10 inflatable penile prosthesis. Source: Rigicon (with permission).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bergman RT, Howard AH, Barnes RW. Plastic reconstruction of the penis. J Urol 1948;59:1174-86. 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)69495-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kabalin JN, Kessler R. Five-year followup of the Scott inflatable penile prosthesis and comparison with semirigid penile prosthesis. J Urol 1988;140:1428-30. 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)42064-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mulcahy JJ. The Development of Modern Penile Implants. Sex Med Rev 2016;4:177-89. 10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.11.003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Polchert M, Dick B, Raheem O. Narrative review of penile prosthetic implant technology and surgical results, including transgender patients. Transl Androl Urol 2021;10:2629-47. 10.21037/tau-20-1279 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Le B, Burnett AL. Evolution of penile prosthetic devices. Korean J Urol 2015;56:179-86. 10.4111/kju.2015.56.3.179 - DOI - PMC - PubMed