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.

The last survivor of unitary and two-piece inflatables—the Ambicor. Does it still have a role in today’s implant marketplace?


The history of the development of today’s very dependable three-piece inflatable penile prostheses is fascinating. In its infancy, the three piece was plagued with frequent revisions and a relatively complex insertion and consequently unitary and two-piece prostheses flourished with the implanting urologists. While the surgery was less difficult because these devices did not require the dreaded reservoir insertion, they often proved unsatisfactory to patients in flaccidity, erection and longevity. By the turn of this century all of the unitary and two-piece inflatables had been withdrawn from the market except the Ambicor two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. This paper covers the history of the various unitary and 2-piece inflatable models before examining a critical question: is the Ambicor 2-piece still a needed implant today?

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

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The Hydroflex/Dynaflex unitary inflatable prosthesis.
Fig. 2: Unitary inflatables malfunction.
Fig. 3: The Flexiflate unitary inflatable.
Fig. 4: The Uniflate 1000 2-piece inflatable (1983).
Fig. 5: Mentor 2-piece inflatable implants.
Fig. 6: AMS Ambicor 2-piece inflatable prosthesis.
Fig. 7: Ambicor problems.
Fig. 8: Ambicor replace with 3-piece prostheses.


  1. Kabalin JN, Kessler R. Experience with the Hydroflex penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1989;41:58–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anafarta K, Yaman O, Aydos K. Clinical experience with the Dynaflex penile prosthesis in 120 patients. Urology. 1998;52:1098–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Oberlin DT, Matuewicz RS, Bachrach L, Hofer MD, Brannigan RE, Flurry SC. National practice patterns of treatment of erectile dysfunction with penile prosthesis implantation. J Urol. 2015;193:2040–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stanisic TH, Dean JC, Donovan JM, Beutler LE. Clinical experience with a self-contained penile implant: the Flexiflate. J Urol. 1988;139:947–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fein RL. The GFS Mark II inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1992;147:66–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. George VK, Erkhan S, Dhabuwala CB. Follow-up with mentor two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Int J Impot Res. 1995;7:17–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability, safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2-center study. J Urol. 2001;166:932–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1074–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Richardson B, Caire A, Hellstrom WJ. Retrospective long-term analysis of titan hydrophilic coating: positive reduction of infection compared to non-coated device. J Sex Med. 2010;7:28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mandava H, Serefoglu EC, Freier MT, Wilson SK, Helstrom WJG. Infection retardant coated inflatable penile prostheses decrease the incidence of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2012;188:1855–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Oliver SK, Bennett NE. Ambicor two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis; background and contemporary outcomes. Sex Med Rev. 2018;2:319–27.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson SK. Pearls perils and pitfalls of prosthetic urology. Fort Smith AR: Calvert McBride; 2008.

  14. Welliver RC, 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 

  15. Henry GD, Karpman E, Brant W, Christine B, Kansas BT, Khera M, et al. The who, how, and what of real-world penile implants patients in 2015: the propper (prospective registry of outcomes with penile prosthesis for erectile restoration) registry baseline data. J Urol. 2016;195:427–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Tatem.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

JJM Consultant: Boston Scientific, Coloplast. AT: Consultant: Boston Scientific, Coloplast, Endo. LW: none. SKW: Consultant AMT, Coloplast, International Medical Devices, Uramix. Lecturer 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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mulcahy, J.J., Tatem, A., Wen, L. et al. The last survivor of unitary and two-piece inflatables—the Ambicor. Does it still have a role in today’s implant marketplace?. Int J Impot Res 34, 511–519 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links