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:

Wilson's Workshop

Inflatable penile prosthesis cylinders out of place during implantation

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 32, pages 598–605 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

It is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of cylinders out of place result from surgeon error at the time of implantation. There are some instances where patient comorbidities could increase the difficulty of accurate development of cylinder insertion or space. Most of the time the operator recognizes his instrument out of place and corrects it intraoperatively. Other times the surgeon makes a flawed movement with a sharp instrument piercing some tissue. When the cylinder is placed initially and inflated the wayward position is usually not evident. However, in the postoperative period, the inaccurate position of the cylinder(s) can become readily apparent. The reader will notice this repeatedly stressed in Wilson’s Workshop—over 90% of cylinders that are out of position can be diagnosed or prevented if one utilizes the two safety checks outlined below.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2: Always test for urethral injury before cylinder placement.
Fig. 3: Protect urethra when modeling.
Fig. 4: Urethral damage in proximal penis.
Fig. 5
Fig. 6: Impending cylinder erosion.
Fig. 7: Diagnosis of proximal corporal perforation.
Fig. 8: Proximal corporal perforation.
Fig. 9: Surgical correction of proximal corporal perforation.
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kohler TK, Gupta NK, Wilson SK. Pearls perils and pitfalls of penile prosthesis surgery. Fort Smith, AR: Calvert McBride Publishing; 2018.

  2. Wilson SK, Delk JR. A new treatment of Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol 1994;52:121–3.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson SK, Simhan J. Is modeling an inflatable penile prosthesis obsolete for patients with Peyronie’s disease? Int J Impot Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0230-z.

  4. 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;153:359–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Henry GD, Carrion R, Jennermann C, Wang R. Prospective evaluation of postoperative penile rehabilitation: Penile length/girth maintenance 1 year following Coloplast Titan inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2015;12:1298–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilson SK, Delk JR. Prevention and treatment of complications of inflatable penile prosthesis surgery: a review article. Arch Esp de Urol. 1996;49:306–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moncada I, Martinez-Salamanca JI, Jara j, et al. Inflatable penile prosthesis implantation without corporal dilatation: a cavernous tissue sparing technique. J Urol. 2010;183:1123–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson SK, Bella AJ, Delk JR, Henry GR, Jones LR, Zafar F, Moncada I. Dilatation is not necessary for insertion of new AMS 700MS inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2007;5:16.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carson C, Noh C. Distal penile prosthesis extrusion: treatment with distal corporoplasty or Gortex windsock reinforcement. Int J Impot Res. 2002;14:81–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900829.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilson SK, Neeb AD, Delk JR II. A new technique to repair proximal corporal perforation during prosthesis implantation: rear tip extender suture sling. J Sex Med. 2006;3:87–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Institute for Urologic Excellence, Indio, CA, USA

    Steven K. Wilson

  2. Department of Urology, Einstein Healthcare Network, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jay Simhan

  3. Department of Urology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Rafael Carrion

Authors
  1. Steven K. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jay Simhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rafael Carrion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven K. Wilson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

SKW: Consultant AMT, Coloplast, International Medical Devices, Stockholder Neotract, Lecturer Boston Scientific. RC: Consultant Boston Scientific, Coloplast, Endo Pharmaceuticals. JS: Consultant Boston Scientific, Coloplast.

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

Wilson, S.K., Simhan, J. & Carrion, R. Inflatable penile prosthesis cylinders out of place during implantation. Int J Impot Res 32, 598–605 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0293-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0293-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links