BACKGROUND: In cases of a noninfected malfunctioning inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device, surgeons often opt to exchange all of the device rather than the defective component for fear of an increased infection rate and future mechanical dysfunction.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether partial-component exchange of an IPP device has comparable outcomes to complete explant and replacement of an IPP device with or without a retained reservoir.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR guidelines. Searches were performed on MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 2023, identifying studies reporting outcomes and complications of revision surgery for noninfected malfunctioning IPP devices. Three groups were compared: those undergoing single- or 2-component exchange, those with complete explantation and replacement, and those with replacement of all components while retaining the primary reservoir.
RESULTS: Analysis included 11 articles comprising 12 202 patients with complete device replacement, 234 with partial device exchange, and 151 with retained reservoirs following revision. Mean ages ranged from 62 to 68 years, with median follow-up times between 3 and 84 months. Partial-component exchange showed a higher infection rate (6.3%) as compared with complete replacement (2.7%) and reservoir retention (3.9%). Similarly, partial exchange had a higher complication rate (23.9%) when compared with complete replacement (11.3%) and reservoir retention (19.6%). Mechanical failure rates for partial exchange were similar across the 3 groups (10%, 2.8%, and 5.8%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Partial-component exchange during IPP revision is associated with higher infection and perioperative complication rates but comparable rates of mechanical failure as compared with complete-component replacement, with or without retaining the original reservoir.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment options for patients with erectile dysfunction whose medical management has failed include the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Many patients with an IPP require subsequent urologic surgery, during which the reservoir of the IPP can be injured.
OBJECTIVE: This review aims to present a summary of current literature related to iatrogenic injuries to the IPP sustained during urologic surgery.
METHODS: Two reviewers independently performed a systematic search on PubMed using standardized search terms to identify pertinent articles. After preliminary review, relevant studies were analyzed to identify the presence of perioperative complications resulting in IPP reservoir injury. Results were categorized by surgical procedures.
RESULTS: Among 13 articles included, all were based on urologic surgery. Four studies identified IPP reservoir injury as a result of surgical injury. Of these, injuries occurred during radical prostatectomy (n = 3) and prostatic urethral lift surgery (UroLift, n = 1). Most radical prostatectomy studies without IPP reservoir injuries also described intentional surgical techniques that were employed to prevent reservoir damage, including modulation of reservoir inflation-deflation (n = 3), temporary reservoir repositioning (n = 1), or reservoir capsule dissection to improve visualization (n = 1). Findings from an additional novel case report on IPP injury during a UroLift procedure are presented in this review.
CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of studies identified intraoperative IPP reservoir injury as a significant complication of urologic surgery, particularly during radical prostatectomy. Novel case report findings also contribute the only other case of IPP reservoir damage sustained from delivery of UroLift implants. Findings are used to create a standardized surgical checklist that guides perioperative planning measures prior to pursuing surgery in adjacent spaces.

BACKGROUND: The salvage procedure for infected penile implants (IPs) has been a subject of interest since its inception in the late 1980s, yet its widespread adoption remains limited. The aim of this study was to realize a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive analysis of salvage techniques for IPs and assess their efficacy, specifically focusing on functional success.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed, employing Mesh terms related to penile prosthesis, penile implant, infection, and salvage procedures. Articles in French or English were considered for the final analysis, with exclusion of literature reviews.
RESULTS: Fifteen articles detailing various salvage techniques for IPs were identified. Mulcahy\'s initial technique was described in 1996, and consisted of complete removal of infected components, extensive lavage, and subsequent replacement with a similar implant. Success rates ranged from 80% to 100%, with emerging trends favoring the use of malleable implants during salvage. Unfortunately, functional data remained limited. When salvage penile prosthesis placement involved a malleable prosthesis, between 20% and 33% of patients underwent conversion to hydraulic prosthesis.
CONCLUSIONS: The salvage procedure for infected penile implants is a reliable method, with success rates surpassing 80%. The need for comparative studies assessing the type of implant used during salvage is required to tailor conservative management strategies for optimal patient outcomes. Finally, few data have been published regarding subsequent conversions from malleable penile implants to hydraulic penile implants after salvage.

BACKGROUND: Refractory priapism, characterized by persistent and prolonged painful erections despite initial treatment maneuvers, can significantly impair erectile function secondary to ischemia-induced corporal tissue fibrosis. These patients will likely require subsequent penile prosthesis (PP) surgery to regain sexual activity, yet consensus regarding the optimal timing of implantation remains lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes associated with early vs delayed PP implantation in individuals with priapism-induced erectile dysfunction (ED).
METHODS: We included studies that focused on refractory priapism leading to ED and its management with PP implantation. We assessed cohort study bias with a risk-of-bias tool and case series bias with the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by a fixed-effect model.
RESULTS: We included 9 studies, comprising 4 cohort studies and 5 case series, involving a total of 278 patients. Total complications were higher in the delayed group (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 2.77-6.26). Fibrosis was significantly more pronounced in the delayed group (OR, 118.18; 95% CI, 20.06-696.32). The odds of erosion, infections, and penile injury did not show statistically significant differences between the groups (OR, 2.52 [95% CI, 0.67-9.49], 0.89 [0.38-2.10], 1.83 [0.79-4.26], respectively). Patients\' satisfaction resulted in a pooled OR of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.04-0.49) in favor of the early PP insertion group.
CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study favor an early approach to ED (within 30 days) following ischemic priapism. However, it is important to consider patients\' preferences, values, and psychological factors to make an informed decision.

Penile prosthesis surgery is a definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). The two categories of penile prosthesis are endorsed by professional guidelines, inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and malleable penile prosthesis (MPP). Each modality of penile prosthesis offers distinct advantages and incorporates specific design features, allowing for personalized device selection that aligns with individual needs and preferences. While the overall complication rate of penile implant surgery remains low, surgeons should maintain a high index of suspicion for complications in the perioperative time period. Multimodal analgesic regimens including nerve blocks and narcotic-free pathways should be administered to manage perioperative pain. Finally, the high patient satisfaction after penile prosthesis surgery underscores the success of this ED treatment option.

BACKGROUND: Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) is the first validated questionnaire to specifically evaluate the satisfaction of patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation. Our primary aim was to conduct a systematic review and pooled analysis of articles reporting QoLSPP.
METHODS: A comprehensive bibliographic search on the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in April 2023. Studies were selected if they assessed male subjects (P) undergoing penile prosthesis implantation (I) with or without comparison with other treatments (C), reporting the patient satisfaction according to QoLSPP (O). Prospective and retrospective original studies were included (S). The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the Knoll method. Means and standard deviations (SDs) of QoLSPP scores were included in the pooled analysis. PROSPERO ID: \"CRD42023427261.\"
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies investigating 1105 patients were included in the systematic review; of these, eight articles describing the outcomes of 693 subjects were eligible for the pooled analysis. Overall serious risk of bias was found in 2/3 of nonrandomized comparative studies (66%), while seven single-arm studies (100%) were classified as having a high risk of bias. Pooled analysis of the QoLSPP-Functional domain revealed an overall effect size (ES) of 4.22 points (95% CI 4.04-4.40; P<0.001). The QoLSPP-Relational pooled score was 4.17 points (95% CI 4.03-4.31; P<0.001). The QoLSPP-Social pooled score corresponded to 4.21 points (95% CI 4.02-4.40; P<0.001). Pooled analysis of the QoLSPP-Personal domain showed an overall ES of 3.97 points (95% CI 3.61-4.32; P<0.001). There was insufficient data to pool QoLSPP total scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation report positive scores in all QoLSPP domains, demonstrating high satisfaction levels. Future studies are needed to improve the evidence on the topic.

A penile prosthesis/implant is an excellent option for men with erectile dysfunction refractory to medical treatment or with contraindications to medical management. In this narrative review, we discuss the different types of penile prostheses and the considerations for patient and device selection to maximize satisfaction. There are three main prosthesis types to choose from: three-piece inflatable devices, two-piece inflatable devices, and malleable/semirigid devices. The three-piece devices are the gold standard in advanced economy countries but require reservoir placement and manual dexterity, which can be limiting to some patients. The two-piece inflatable devices are a good option for patients who have standard-sized penises, lack significant penile pathology, have limited dexterity issues, or should avoid reservoir placement due to potential complications. The malleable devices are popular in countries where insurance coverage is limited but are increasingly used in advanced economy countries for length conservation in specific patient populations. Finally, not every patient needs an implant, and assessing partner sexual function is an important consideration for patient-partner satisfaction. Surgeons need to be familiar with the strengths and limitations of each device and the patient characteristics that will yield the best outcome from penile prosthesis surgery.

BACKGROUND: The minimally invasive infrapubic approach (MIIA) for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement has shown favorable peri-operative safety and efficacy profile, but scarce data exist on long-term follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the safety and efficacy of IPP implantation via the MIIA after a minimum 5-year follow-up.
METHODS: We identified data of implanted patients prospectively included in our institutional database. Complications and functional outcomes were assessed by using validated tools. Specifically, quality of life and patient satisfaction were evaluated by the Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis (QoLSPP) questionnaire. Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze IPP survival (defined as a working IPP).
RESULTS: Overall, 67 patients implanted by MIIA with a median (IQR) age of 64 years (61-70) were included. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 71 months (63-80). Fifteen (22%) patients experienced complications: minor (Clavien ≤2) events included changes in penile sensitivity (n = 1; 1.5%), orgasmic dysfunction (n = 1; 1.5%), pain (n = 5; 7%), urinary tract infection (n = 2; 3%), and chronic discomfort (n = 1; 1.5%); major (Clavien 3) complications were represented by mechanical failure (n = 3; 4.5%), IPP infection (n = 1; 1.5%), and cylinder protrusion (n = 1; 1.5%). The estimated IPP survival was 94% (95% CI, 91.4-96.6), 92.5% (95% CI, 89.7-95.3), and 92.5% (95% CI, 89.7-95.3) at 3, 5, and 7 years after implantation, respectively. In patients using the device at follow-up (n = 61; 91%), median (IQR) scores for QoLSPP domains demonstrated favorable functional outcomes and patient satisfaction: functional 21 (19-23), personal 16 (15-18), relational 14 (12-15), and social 12 (11-14).
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the longest follow-up using validated tools to assess the outcomes of IPP implantation via MIIA so far. IPP placement via MIIA confirms to be safe and to offer high satisfaction to both patients and partners at mid-term evaluation.

Penile implant surgery is the gold standard to treat erectile dysfunction with success rates of over 90%. The first penile implants were developed in the early 1900s. Since then, several types of implants have been developed including malleable implants, two-piece inflatable implants, and three-piece inflatable implants. The three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis, which was introduced in 1973, is the most widely used type of penile implant in the United States. Penile implant surgery has undergone numerous advancements over the years, improving outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, as with any surgical procedure, there are risks and complications associated with penile implant surgery. It is important for surgeons to understand these potential complications and to have strategies in place to manage and prevent them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their patients.

The efficacy, safety, and postoperative outcomes of synchronous surgery for concomitant erectile dysfunction (ED) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) remain unclear.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the available synchronous surgical approaches for concomitant ED and SUI and to assess the reoperation rates compared to asynchronous surgery and surgery only for ED or SUI.
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases until June 2022 for relevant studies. Based on data availability, we performed a meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) comparing reoperation rates after synchronous surgery in patients with concomitant ED and SUI versus asynchronous surgery, as well as surgery solely for ED or SUI (PROSPERO: CRD42022326941).
We included 18 studies in the systematic review (16,517 patients) and 5 in the meta-analysis. Comparing synchronous implantation of penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) versus asynchronous surgery, no statistically significant differences were observed in the reoperation rates [OR:0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-1.84, I2:0%). Comparing synchronous implantation of both penile prosthesis and AUS versus implantation of only a penile prosthesis or an AUS, combined surgery was associated with higher reoperation rates (OR:2.02, 95%CI: 1.29-3.16, I2:36% and OR:1.7, 95%CI: 1.25-2.32, I2:0%, respectively). Synchronous surgery led to high satisfaction rates and significant improvement in ED and SUI. Evidence for the combination of penile prosthesis with a male sling or the ProACT device is low, but data suggests it may be safe and effective. The synchronous placement of a Mini-Jupette sling and penile prosthesis represents a promising treatment modality for the correction of ED and mild SUI and/or climacturia.
Synchronous penile prosthesis and AUS implantation appears safe and effective in patients with severe ED and SUI. Further high-quality studies are mandatory to strengthen the current scarce evidence for synchronous surgery in patients with ED and SUI.