Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Two-piece inflatable and semi-rigid penile implants: an effective alternative?


Penile prostheses (PPs) are an excellent treatment to be considered for patients suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED), refractory to oral medications, or unwilling to consider intracavernosal injections or other therapeutic strategies. Nowadays the market is dominated by three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), which are considered the best option available. However, in some specific cases three-piece IPP may be superseded by semi-rigid penile prosthesis (SRPP) and two-piece IPP. Despite the advantages of these implants, the literature is quite scarce, not robust and rarely takes into consideration the partner’s satisfaction. This clearly affects the strength of our conviction. Most of the studies confirm that SRPPs and two-piece IPPs can be considered a valid alternative in patients with hand dexterity issues, refractory ischaemic priapism, neophallus and in cases of complex anatomies. In addition, the ease of placement and the high confidence level of surgeons make them a powerful tool in the armamentarium of urologists.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. 1.

    Hatzimouratidis K, Giuliano F, Moncada I, Muneer A, Salonia A, Verze P. EAU guidelines on erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, penile curvature and priapism. 2019.

  2. 2.

    Levine LA, Becher EF, Bella AJ, Brant WO, Kohler TS, Martinez-Salamanca JI, et al. Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the international consultation on sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2016;13:489–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Capece M, La Rocca R, Mirone V, Bivalacqua TJ, Castiglione F, Albersen M, et al. A systematic review on ischemic priapism and immediate implantation: do we need more data? Sex. Med. Rev. 2019;7:530–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Le B, Burnett AL. Evolution of penile prosthetic devices. Korean J Urol. 2015;56:179–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rodriguez KM, Pastuszak AW. A history of penile implants. Transl Androl Urol 2017 ;6 Suppl 5:S851–S857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence. Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2:80–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hakky TS, Wang R, Henry GD. The evolution of the inflatable penile prosthetic device and surgical innovations with anatomical considerations. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15:410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Abdelsayed GA, Levine LA. Ambicor 2-piece inflatable penile prosthesis: who and how? J Sex Med. 2018;15:410–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Natali A, Olianas R, Fisch M. Penile implantation in Europe: successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany. J Sex Med. 2008;5:1503–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Trost LW, Baum N, Hellstrom WJ. Managing the difficult penile prosthesis patient. J Sex Med. 2013;10:893–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Small MP, Carrion HM, Gordon JA. Small-carrion penile prosthesis: new implant for management of impotence. Urol. 1975;5:479–86.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Krauss DJ, Lantinga LJ, Carey MP, Meisler AW, Kelly CM. Use of the malleable penile prosthesis in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: a prospective study of postoperative adjustment. J Urol. 1989;142:988–91.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, Bergamaschi F, Rigatti P. Patient-partner satisfaction with semirigid penile prostheses for Peyronie’s disease: a 5-year followup study. J Urol. 1993;150:1819–21.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Salama N. Satisfaction with the malleable penile prosthesis among couples from the Middle East–is it different from that reported elsewhere? Int J Impot Res. 2004;16:175–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Falcone M, Rolle L, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Sedigh O, Preto M, et al. Prospective analysis of the surgical outcomes and patients’ satisfaction rate after the AMS Spectra penile prosthesis implantation. Urology 2013;82:373–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Akdemir F, Okulu E, Kayıgil Ö. Long-term outcomes of AMS Spectra® penile prosthesis implantation and satisfaction rates. Int J Impot Res. 2017;29:184–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kim YD, Yang SO, Lee JK, Jung TY, Shim HB. Usefulness of a malleable penile prosthesis in patients with a spinal cord injury. Int J Urol. 2008;15:919–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mulcahy JJ. Penile prosthesis infection: progress in prevention and treatment. Curr Urol Rep. 2010;11:400–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kohler TS, Modder JK, Dupree JM. Malleable implant substitution for the management of penile prosthesis pump erosion: a pilot study. J Sex Med. 2009;6:1474–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gross MS, Phillips EA, Balen A, Eid JF, Yang C, Simon R, et al. The malleable implant salvage technique: infection outcomes after mulcahy salvage procedure and replacement of infected inflatable penile prosthesis with malleable prosthesis. J Urol. 2016;195:694–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Capece M, Gillo A, Cocci A, Garaffa G, Timpano M, Falcone M. Management of refractory ischemic priapism: current perspectives. Res Rep Urol. 2017;9:175–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    AMS AmbicorTM inflatable penile prosthesis operating room manual. Minnetonka, MN: American Medical Systems; 2017. 22000018-18-MH.

  23. 23.

    Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability and safety of and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol. 2001;166:932–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cuellar DC, Sklar GN. Penile prosthesis in the organ transplant recipient. Urology. 2001;57:138–41.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hoebeke PB, Decaestecker K, Beysens M, Opdenakker Y, Lumen N, Monstrey SM. Erectile implants in female-to-male transsexuals: our experience in 129 patients. Eur Urol. 2010;57:334–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Neuville P, Morel-Journel N, Maucourt-Boulch D, Ruffion A, Paparel P, Terrier JE. Surgical outcomes of erectile implants after phalloplasty: retrospective analysis of 95 procedures. J Sex Med. 2016;13:1758–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, Levine LA. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2007;177:262–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Welliver RC Jr, Fonseca AN, West BL, McVary KT, Köhler TS. Autoinflation leading to failure of two-piece Ambicor implantable penile prosthesis: an outcome from a methodical treatment of recalcitrant stuttering priapism. Case Rep Urol. 2014;2014:529037.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Martinez DR, Terlecki R, Brant WO. The evolution and utility of the small-carrion prosthesis, its impact, and progression to the modern-day malleable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2015;12 Suppl 7:423–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bozkurt IH, Arslan B, Yonguc T, Kozacıoglu Z, Degirmenci T, Gunlusoy B, et al. Patient and partner outcome of inflatable and semi-rigid penile prosthesis in a single institution. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41:535–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Gentile G, Franceschelli A, Massenio P, Tuccio A, Cocci A, Divenuto L, et al. Patient’s satisfaction after 2-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: an Italian multicentric study. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016;88:1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Casabé AR, Sarotto N, Gutierrez C, Bechara AJ. Satisfaction assessment with malleable prosthetic implant of Spectra (AMS) and Genesis (Coloplast) models. Int J Impot Res. 2016;28:228–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Verze.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verze, P., Capece, M., Califano, G. et al. Two-piece inflatable and semi-rigid penile implants: an effective alternative?. Int J Impot Res 32, 24–29 (2020).

Download citation


Quick links