Abstract
Corporal fibrosis is a process that involves excessive deposition of scar tissue in response to infection, trauma, or ischemia. It does not occur merely as a result of previous IPP surgery. Excessive development of corporal fibrosis is certain after extraneous and disastrous events such as priapism or the removal of a device for infection. The usual surgical planes and spaces are obliterated by proliferation of scar both in the tissues overlying the corpora and the space within the corpora previously occupied by erectile tissue. To maximize success, specialized instruments, downsized cylinders, and lots of experience are necessities. Prosthetic urology produces, for the most part, happy patients. Fibrosis guys, to a man are not happy. Let the expert have the unhappy patient!
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 8 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $32.38 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kohler TS, Gupta NK, Wilson SK. Wilson’s pearls perils and pitfalls of penile prosthesis surgery. Fort Smith AR: Calvert McBride Publishing; 2018.
Montague DK, Angermeier KW. Corporal excavation: new technique for penile prosthesis implantation in men with severe corporal fibrosis. Urology. 2005;67:1072–05.
George VK, Shah GS, Mills R, Dhabuwala CB. The management of extensive penile fibrosis: a new technique of minimal scar-tissue excision. Br J Urol. 1996;77:282–4.
Palese MA, Burnett AL. Corporoplasty using pericardium allograft (Tutoplast) with complex penile prosthesis surgery. Urology. 2001;58:1049–52.
Herschorn S, Ordorica RC. Penile prosthesis insertion with corporeal reconstruction with synthetic vascular graft material. J Urol. 1995;154:80–4.
Martinez-Salamanca JI, Mueller A, Moncada I. Penile prosthesis surgery in patients with corporal fibrosis: a state-of-the-art review. J Sex Med. 2011;8:1880–9.
Hebert K, Yafi F, Wilson SK. Inflatable penile prosthesis implantation into scarred corporal bodies; timing may decrease postoperative problems. BJU Int. 2020;125:168–72.
Wilson SK, Delk JR, Terry T. Improved implant survival in patients with severe corporal fibrosis: a new technique without the necessity of grafting. J Urol. 1995;161:359–61.
Shaeer O. Penoscopy: optical corporotomy and resection for prosthesis implantation in cases of penile fibrosis, Shaeer’s technique. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1214–7.
Mooreville M, Sorin A, Delk JR, Wilson SK. Implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis in patients with severe corporal fibrosis: introduction of a new penile cavernotome. J Urol. 1999;162:2054–7.
Ghanem H, Ghazy S, El-Meliegy A. Corporal counter incisions: a simplified approach to penile prosthesis implantation in fibrotic cases. Int J Impot Res. 2000;12:153–6.
Tsambarlis PN, Chaus F, Levine LA. Successful placement of penile prostheses in men with severe corporal fibrosis following vacuum therapy protocol. J Sex Med. 2017;14:44–6.
Lopatequi DM, Balise RR, Bouzoubaa LA, Wilson SK, Kava BR. The impact of immediate salvage surgery on corporeal length preservation in patients presenting with penile implant infections. J Urol. 2018;200:171–7.
Wilson SK, Delk JR, Mulcahy JJ, Cleves M, Salem E. Upsizing of inflatable penile implant cylinders in patients with corporal fibrosis. J Sex Med. 2006;3:736–42.
Sellers T, Dineen M, Salem E, Wilson SK. Vacuum preparation, optimization of cylinder length and postoperative daily inflation reduces complaints of shortened penile length following implantation of inflatable penile prosthesis. Adv Sex Med. 2013;3:14–8.
Miranda-Sousa A, Keating M, Mireira S, Baker M, Carrion R. Concomitant ventral phalloplasty during penile implant surgery: a novel procedure that optimizes patient satisfaction and their perception of phallic length after penile implant surgery. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1494–9.
Shaeer O, Shaeer K, Islam FS, Rahman A. Supersizing the penis upon penile prosthesis implantation by Shaeer’s dorsal phalloplasty. Hum Androl. 2016;6:97–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
SKW: Consultant for Consultant AMT, Coloplast, International Medical Devices. Stockholder Neotract. 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
About this article
Cite this article
Wilson, S.K., Simhan, J. & Gross, M.S. Cylinder insertion into scarred corporal bodies: prosthetic urology’s most difficult challenge: some suggestions for making the surgery easier. Int J Impot Res 32, 483–494 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0282-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0282-0
This article is cited by
-
Long-term experience with AMS-700 CXR inflatable penile prosthesis in high-risk patients with corporal fibrosis
International Journal of Impotence Research (2024)
-
Surgical tips in difficult penile prosthetic surgery: a narrative review
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Penile implant infection part 3: the changing spectrum of treatment
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange: a single-center retrospective cohort study
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Unexpected nuances of the penoscrotal inflatable penile prosthesis
International Journal of Impotence Research (2022)