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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Infrapubic approach for placement of inflatable penile prosthesis: contemporary review of technique and implications

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 32, pages 10–17 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction refractory to nonsurgical management. The infrapubic approach for IPP placement is less frequently employed than the penoscrotal approach, with only about 25% of IPPs placed via this method. Underutilization of the infrapubic method may be due to fear of injuring the penile dorsal neurovascular bundle, perceived difficulties of scrotal pump placement through a distant location, or insufficient distal corporal exposure. However, this approach appears to result in favorable operative times, faster time to device activation, equivalent postoperative satisfaction and quality of life, and similar complication rates. We provide a contemporary review of literature published before May 2019 regarding the infrapubic approach for IPP placement, technical considerations, and postoperative expectations.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McCabe MP, Sharlip ID, Lewis R, Atalla E, Balon R, Fisher AD, et al. Incidence and prevalence of sexual dysfunction in women and men: a consensus statement from the fourth international consultation on sexual medicine 2015. J Sex Med. 2016;13:144–52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743609516000795?via%3Dihub.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kubin M, Wagner G, Fugl-Meyer AR. Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15:63–71. http://www.nature.com/articles/3900949.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Litwin MS, Nied RJ, Dhanani N. Health-related quality of life in men with erectile dysfunction. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:159–66. http://link.springer.com/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00050.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, Krane RJ, McKinlay JB. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts male aging study. J Urol. 1994;151:54–61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534717348711.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Balon R. Burden of sexual dysfunction. J Sex Marital Ther. 2017;43:49–55. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2015.1113597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burnett AL, Nehra A, Breau RH, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, et al. Erectile dysfunction: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2018;200:633–41. http://www.jurology.com/doi/10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shamloul R, Ghanem H. Erectile dysfunction. Lancet. 2013;381:153–65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612605200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Scott F, Bradley W, Timm G. Management of erectile impotence. Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urol. 1973;2:80–2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4766860.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rodriguez KM, Kohn TP, Davis AB, Hakky TS. Penile implants: a look into the future. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(Suppl 5):S860–6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29238665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Small MP, Carrion HM, Gordon JA. Small-Carrion penile prosthesis. New implant for management of impotence. Urol. 1975;5:479–86. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1093303.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Levine LA, Becher E, Bella A, Brant W, Kohler T, Martinez-Salamanca JI, et al. Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the International consultation on sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2016;13:489–518. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743609516003027?via%3Dihub.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Weinberg AC, Pagano MJ, Deibert CM, Valenzuela RJ. Sub-coronal inflatable penile prosthesis placement with modified no-touch technique: a step-by-step approach with outcomes. J Sex Med. 2016;13:270–6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174360951500051X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barrett DM, Furlow WL. Penile prosthesis implantation. In: diagnosis and treatment of erectile disturbances. Boston, MA: Springer US; 1985. 219–40. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4615-9409-3_10.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Vollstedt A, Gross MS, Antonini G, Perito PE. The infrapubic surgical approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:620–7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28904894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharma N, Berookhim B, Nelson C, Jenkins L, Mulhall J. 028 contemporary practice patterns for penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med. 2017;14:e13–4. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1743609516309237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hellstrom WJG, Montague DK, Moncada I, Carson C, Minhas S, Faria G, et al. Implants, mechanical devices, and vascular surgery for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2010;7:501–23. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1743609515328587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405–17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030228381200629X?via%3Dihub.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. K Hatzimouratidis, F Giuliano, I Moncada, A Muneer, A Salonia PV. European association of urology guidelines for male sexual dysfunction. Eur Assoc Urol. 2018. https://uroweb.org/guideline/male-sexual-dysfunction/.

  19. Trost LW, Boonjindasup AG, Hellstrom WJG. Comparison of infrapubic versus transcrotal approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institution report. Int J Impot Res. 2015;27:86–9. http://www.nature.com/articles/ijir201435.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kramer AC, Sausville J, Schweber A. Practice patterns of urologists performing penile prosthesis surgery vary based on surgeon volume: results of a practice pattern survey. Int J Impot Res. 2010;22:262–6. http://www.nature.com/articles/ijir201013.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Karpman E, Bella A, Brant W, Christine B, Kansas B, Jones L, et al. PD26-10 outcomes of IPP placement by surgical approach, penoscrotal vs. infrapubic, results from a prospective multicenter study. J Urol. 2015;193:e569–70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002253471501397X.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Garber BB. Inflatable penile prosthesis: site-specific malfunction analysis. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15:22–5. http://www.nature.com/articles/3900942.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int. 2006;97:129–33. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05907.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Grande P, Antonini G, Cristini C, De Berardinis E, Gatto A, Di Lascio G, et al. Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36:1167–74. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00345-018-2249-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Antonini G, Busetto GM, De Berardinis E, Giovannone R, Vicini P, Del Giudice F, et al. Minimally invasive infrapubic inflatable penile prosthesis implant for erectile dysfunction: evaluation of efficacy, satisfaction profile and complications. Int J Impot Res. 2016;28:4–8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26657316.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kramer A, Chason J. Residents at the University of Maryland Medical System provide insight to learning infrapubic approach for ipp surgery: relative benefits but novel challenges exposed in first 15 cases. 2010:1298–305. https://ucill.vdxhost.com/zportal/zengine?VDXaction=GetAttachment&illno=8781157&objectno=1513785&objectseq=1&is_popup_window=true.

  27. Montorsi F, Rigatti P, Carmignani G, Corbui C, Campo B, Ordesi G, et al. Erectile dysfunction AMS three-piece inflatable implants for erectile dysfunction: a long-term multi-institutional study in 200 consecutive patients. 2000. www.karger.com.

  28. Tran H, Goldfarb R, Ackerman A, Valenzuela RJ. Penile lengthening, girth, and size preservation at the time of penile prosthesis insertion. Sex Med Rev. 2017;5:403–12. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28238678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Candela JV, Hellstrom WJ. Three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a comparison of the penoscrotal and infrapubic surgical approaches. J La State Med Soc. 1996;148:296–301. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8816024.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Palmisano F, Boeri L, Cristini C, Antonini G, Spinelli MG, Franco G, et al. Comparison of infrapubic vs. penoscrotal approaches for 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement: do we have a winner? Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:631–9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050052118300520?via%3Dihub.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jorissen C, De Bruyn H, Baten E, van Renterghem KMLE. 601 Clinical outcome/patient and partner satisfaction after penile implant surgery. J Sex Med. 2018;15:S353. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S174360951830780X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Eid JF. Penile implant: review of a “No-Touch” technique. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:294–300. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2050052116000573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pineda M, Burnett AL. Penile prosthesis infections—a review of risk factors, prevention, and treatment. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:389–98. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2050052116300026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. O’Rourke TK, Erbella A, Zhang Y, Wosnitzer MS, Wosnitzer MS. Prevention, identification, and management of post-operative penile implant complications of infection, hematoma, and device malfunction. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(Suppl 5):S832–48. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29238663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Garber BB, Marcus SM. Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection? Urol. 1998;52:291–3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090429598001861?via%3Dihub.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Goldstein I, Newman L, Baum N, Brooks M, Chaikin L, Goldberg K, et al. Safety and efficacy outcome of mentor alpha-1 inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for impotence treatment. J Urol. 1997;157:833–9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9072580.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Thomalla JV, Thompson ST, Rowland RG, Mulcahy JJ. Infectious complications of penile prosthetic implants. J Urol. 1987;138:65–7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534717429910.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Montague DK. Periprosthetic infections. J Urol. 1987;138:68–9. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1016/S0022-5347%2817%2942992-2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Gupta NK, Ring J, Trost L, Wilson SK, Köhler TS. The penoscrotal surgical approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:628–38. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28904895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sadeghi-Nejad H, Sharma A, Irwin RJ, Wilson SK, Delk JR. Reservoir herniation as a complication of three-piece penile prosthesis insertion. Urology. 2001;57:142–5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090429500008645?via%3Dihub.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Gross MS, Stember DS, Garber BB, Perito PE. A retrospective analysis of risk factors for IPP reservoir entry into the peritoneum after abdominal wall placement. Int J Impot Res. 2017;29:215–8. http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ijir.2017.26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Montague DK, Angermeir KW. Surgical approaches for penile prosthesis implantation: penoscrotal vs infrapubic. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15:134–5. www.nature.com/ijir.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Rajiv Jayadevan, Sriram V. Eleswarapu & Jesse N. Mills

Authors
  1. Rajiv Jayadevan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sriram V. Eleswarapu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesse N. Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RJ acquired data and wrote the paper. SE and JNM assisted with paper design and revision. All authors approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse N. Mills.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

RJ and SVE declare no potential conflicts of interest. JNM serves as a consultant and proctor for Boston Scientific.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jayadevan, R., Eleswarapu, S.V. & Mills, J.N. Infrapubic approach for placement of inflatable penile prosthesis: contemporary review of technique and implications. Int J Impot Res 32, 10–17 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0193-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0193-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links