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.

Unexpected nuances of the penoscrotal inflatable penile prosthesis

Abstract

The inflatable penile prosthesis was first implanted with a large vertical suprapubic incision. Nowadays, three surgical approaches are utilized: penoscrotal, infrapubic, and subcoronal. Globally the penoscrotal approach is used most often. Our first author describes nuances of the high transverse scrotal incision technique gained over 48 years of experience. Many of these methods will interest the reader because they are divergent from the common practice of implanters across the world. These distinctions are designed to diminish the risk of infection, speed up the surgery, and improve outcomes for both the patient and his surgeon.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Original Scott inflatable prosthesis.
Fig. 2: Surgical wound draping suggestions.
Fig. 3: High transverse scrotal incision.
Fig. 4: Metal and disposable “Scott” retractors.
Fig. 5: Proper use of disposable retractor and accessories saves time.
Fig. 6: Wilson recommended accessories for IPP.
Fig. 7: Safety checks should be done on every IPP.
Fig. 8: IPP accessories may minimize infection and hematoma.

References

  1. 1.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Sorensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg 2012;147:373–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Silverstein A, Henry GD, Delk JR, Wilson S, Donatucci CF. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus as a potential risk factor for infection after penile prosthesis placement. Int J Impot Res. 2002;14:S61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Carbone DJ, Daitch JA, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Montague DK. Management of severe corporal fibrosis with implantation of prosthesis via a transverse scrotal approach. J Urol. 1998;159:125–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Wang Q, Goswami K, Shohat N, Aalirezaie A, Manrique J, Parvizi J. Longer operative time results in a higher rate of subsequent periprosthetic joint infection in patients undergoing primary joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2019;34:947–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Onyeji IC, Sui W, Pagano MJ, Weinberg AC, James MB, Theofanides MC, et al. Impact of surgeon case value on reoperation rates after inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol. 2017;197:223–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wilson SK, Simhan J, Gross M. Cylinder Insertion into scarred corporal bodies: prosthetic urology’s most difficult challenge. Int J Impot Res. 2020. [epublished ahead of print].

  8. 8.

    Wilson SK, Simhan J, Carrion R. IPP cylinders out of place during implantation. Int J Impot Res. 2020. [epublished ahead of print].

  9. 9.

    Wilson SK, Parker J, Carrion R, Simhan J. Out of place cylinders discovered in the post-operative period. Int J Impot Res. 2020. [epublished ahead of print].

  10. 10.

    Welliver C, Kottwitz M, Ahmad AE, Wilson SK, Kohler TS. Manufacturers data show increasing implanted cylinder sizes and measured corporal lengths in inflatable penile implants. World J Urol. 2016;34:993–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hernandez JC, Trost L, Kohler T, Ring J, Traweek R, Alom M, Wang R. Emerging complications following alternative reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a 5-year multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2019;201:581–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sadeghi-Nejad H, Ilbeigi P, Wilson SK, Delk JR, Siegel A, Seftel A, Shannon L. Multi institutional outcome study on the efficacy of closed suction drainage of the scrotum in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Int J Impot Res. 2005;17:535–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Muench PJ. Infections versus penile implants: the war on bugs. J Urol. 2013;189:1631–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Wilson SK. The top five surgical things I wish I had known earlier in my career. Lessons learned from prosthetic urology. J Sex Med. 2018;15:809–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lu JY, Miller EJ, Welliver C. A thematic analysis of the online discussion board, FrankTalk regarding penile implant. J Sex Med. 2020;17:325–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven K. Wilson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

SW: Consultant: AMT, Coloplast, International Medical Devices. Lecturer Boston Scientific. Stockholder NeoTract. PP: Consultant Boston Scientific, Coloplast. SP: Consultant Boston Scientific, Coloplast. JM: 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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, S.K., Perito, P., Park, S.S.H. et al. Unexpected nuances of the penoscrotal inflatable penile prosthesis. Int J Impot Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0341-6

Download citation

Search

Quick links