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.

  • Case Report
  • Published:

Tissue ingrowth in penile implants and its effect on repeat penile surgery

Abstract

Penile implant malfunction is usually treated by removal of the original malfunctioning implant followed by replacement with a new device. During replacement, the original implant can be explanted without any difficulty, as it is not adherent to the surrounding tissue. Herein, we describe two cases of tissue ingrowth into the implant that produced difficulty during explantation and suggest ways in which this condition can be managed.

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
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW . Management of erectile impotence. Urology 1973; 2: 80–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kabalin JN, Kessler R . Five year follow up of the Scott inflatable penile prosthesis and comparison with the semirigid penile prosthesis. J Urol 1988; 140: 1428–1430.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nickas ME, Kessler R, Kabalin JN . Long-term experience with controlled expansion cylinders in the AMS 700 CX inflatable penile prosthesis and comparison with earlier versions of the Scott inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 1994; 44: 400–403.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Daitch JA et al. Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700 series inflatable penile prostheses; comparison of CX/CXM and Ultrex cylinders. J Urol 1997; 159: 1400–1402.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dubocq F et al. Long-term mechanical reliability of multi-component inflatable penile prosthesis: comparison of device survival. Urology 1998; 52: 277–281.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE, AMS 700CX study group . Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700 CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. J Urol 2000; 164: 376–380.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilson SK, Cleves M, Delk JR . Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced Mentor Alpha 1 penile prosthesis. J Urol 1999; 162: 715–718.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fishman IJ, Scott FB, Light GK . Experience with inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 1984; 23(Suppl): 86–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gadacz TR, Chase JA, Duke S . Technology of prosthetic material. Semin Laparosc Surg 1994; 1: 123–127.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Batniji RK et al. Tissue response to expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and silicone implants in a rabbit model. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2002; 4: 111–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Martakos P, Karwoski T . Healing characteristics of hybrid and conventional poytetrafluoroethylene vascular grafts. ASAIO J 1995; 41: M735–M741.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ketharanathan V, Christie BA . Glutaraldehyde tanned ovine collagen compared with polytetrafluoroethylene (Gore-Tex) as a conduit for small caliber artery substitution: an experimental study in dogs. Aust NZ J Surg 1981; 51: 556–561.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mulcahy JJ . Editorial comment. J Urol 2002; 167: 1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C B Dhabuwala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rajpurkar, A., Shah, R., Starkman, J. et al. Tissue ingrowth in penile implants and its effect on repeat penile surgery. Int J Impot Res 16, 203–206 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901217

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901217

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links