Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Does a replacement or revision of an inflatable penile prosthesis lead to decreased patient satisfaction?

Abstract

To analyze the reason for replacement, revision and overall satisfaction of a cohort who underwent surgical replacement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). A cohort of 105 patients who underwent IPP replacement from 2005–2007 was retrieved from the prosthesis database. Approximately 21.9% (23) underwent replacement or revision of their prosthesis because of complications, and were further analyzed. Reason for removal was stratified into infectious and non-infectious (erosion, non-function and patient discomfort). Age, race (African American vs non-African American), smoking history, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease and hyperlipidemia were stratified by reason for removal. Finally, we contacted patients and recorded subjective satisfaction with their IPP. The reason for removal was most commonly because of a non-functional IPP (47.8%), followed by infection (30.4%), erosion (17.4%) and patient discomfort (4.3%). Age and race did not show a significant difference when analyzing reason for replacement (P>0.05). Patients who were smokers (P=0.907) had hypertension (P=0.554), diabetes (P=0.591) or hyperlipidemia (P=0.219) did not have significantly higher infection rates. Approximately 58.3% were satisfied with their prosthesis, 75% would have the surgery performed again and 91.7% would still recommend prosthesis surgery. Device malfunction was the primary reason for replacement/removal at our institution. Despite the complications of prosthesis reoperation, the majority of patients were still satisfied with their prosthesis, would have the surgery performed again and would recommend prosthesis surgery to a friend.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP . Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int 2006; 97: 129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR, Carson CC, Wiygul J, Tornehl C et al. Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol 2005; 173: 89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, Lucarelli G, Palazzo S, Battaglia M et al. Patient and partner satisfaction after AMS inflatable penile prosthesis implant. J Sex Med 2010; 7 (1 Part 1): 304–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abouassaly R, Angermeier KW, Montague DK . Risk of infection with an antibiotic coated penile prosthesis at device replacement for mechanical failure. J Urol 2006; 176: 2471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jarow JP . Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol 1996; 156: 402.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN . Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology 2003; 62: 918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rajpurkar A, Shah R, Starkman J, Dhabuwala CB . Tissue ingrowth in penile implants and its effect on repeat penile surgery. Int J Impot Res 2004; 16: 203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Natali A, Olianas R, Fisch M . Penile implantation in Europe: successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany. J Sex Med 2008; 5: 1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garber BB . Inflatable penile prosthesis: site-specific malfunction analysis. Int J Impot Res 2003; 15: 22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM . Penile prosthesis infections. Int J Impot Res 2001; 13: 326.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jarow JP . Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol 1996; 156: 402.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson SK, Delk II JR . Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol 1995; 153: 659.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Licht MR, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM . Cultures from genitourinary prostheses at reoperation: questioning the role of Staphylococcus epidermidis in periprosthetic infection. J Urol 1995; 154: 387.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Govier FE, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ, Pritchett TR, Kramer-Levien D . Mechanical reliability, surgical complications, and patient and partner satisfaction of the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 1998; 52: 282.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Henry GD, Carson CC, Wilson SK, Wiygul J, Tornehl C, Cleves MA et al. Revision washout decreases implant capsule tissue culture positivity: a multicenter study. J Urol 2008; 179: 186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sadeghi-Nejad H . Penile prosthesis surgery: a review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med 2007; 4: 296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Park JK, Jang SW, Lee SW, Cui Y . Rare complication of multiple revision surgeries of penile prosthesis. J Sex Med 2005; 2: 735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tefilli MV, Dubocq F, Rajpurkar A, Gheiler EL, Tiguert R, Barton C et al. Assessment of psychosexual adjustment after insertion of inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 1998; 52: 1106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W J G Hellstrom.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caire, A., Boonjindasup, A. & Hellstrom, W. Does a replacement or revision of an inflatable penile prosthesis lead to decreased patient satisfaction?. Int J Impot Res 23, 39–42 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2011.1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2011.1

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links