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.

The artificial urinary sphincter and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis each require a fluid storage component and thus have components in the inguinal and pelvic regions. Because of this, patients with urologic prosthetics sometimes present challenges during future nonprosthetic operations. Presently, there is no established guideline for device management with ensuing inguinal or pelvic surgery.
This article outlines concerns during pelvic and inguinal surgery for patients with an artificial urinary sphincter and/or inflatable penile prosthesis and proposes an algorithm for preoperative surgical planning and decision making.
We conducted a narrative review of the literature on operative management of these prosthetic devices. Publications were identified by searching electronic databases. Only peer-reviewed publications available in English were considered for this review.
We review the important considerations as well as available options for operative management of these prosthetic devices during subsequent nonprosthetic surgery and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each. Finally, we suggest a framework for helping surgeons determine which management strategy is most appropriate for their individual patients.
The best management strategy will differ depending on patient values, the planned surgery, and patient-specific factors. Surgeons should understand and counsel patients on all available options and encourage informed, shared decision making to determine the best individualized approach.

Reservoir placement during implantation of prosthetic urology devices has been problematic throughout the history of the surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. We thought it would be interesting to review the history of reservoir placement leading up to current surgical techniques.
To provide an overview of the past and present techniques for reservoir placement and discuss the evolutionary process leading to safe and effective placement of prosthetic reservoirs.
We reviewed data pertaining to inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs and pressure-regulating balloons (PRB) in a chronological fashion, spanning 25 years.
Main outcomes included a historical review of techniques for IPP reservoir and PRB placement leading to the subsequent incremental improvements in safety and efficacy when performing penile implants and artificial urinary sphincters.
Prosthetic urologic reservoirs have traditionally been placed in the retropubic space. Over the years, urologists have attempted use of alternative spaces including peritoneal, epigastric, \"ectopic,\" posterior to transversalis, and high submuscular.
Current advances in prosthetic urologic reservoir placement allow safe and effective abdominal wall placement of reservoirs. These novel approaches appear to be so effective that urologists may now be able to cease using the traditional retropubic space for reservoir placement, even in the case of virgin pelves.