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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Current practices regarding corporotomy localization during penoscrotal inflatable penile implant surgery: a multicenter cohort study

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 34, pages 302–307 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Literature concerning corporotomy location in multicomponent inflatable penile prosthetic surgery via a penoscrotal approach is scarce if not nonexistent. Aim of our study was to report practices in low-, moderate-, and high-volume penile implant centers regarding corporotomy location and evaluate its potential impact on intraoperative and short-term postoperative complications. Data from 18 (13 European and 5 American) implant centers were collected retrospectively between September 1st, 2018 and August 31st, 2019. Variables included: intraoperative proximal and distal corpus cavernosum length measurement, total corporal length measurement, total penile implant cylinder length, and length of rear tip extenders. Eight hundred and nine virgin penile implant cases were included in the analysis. Mean age of participants was 61.5 ± 9.6 years old. In total, 299 AMS 700™ (Boston Scientific, USA) and 510 Coloplast Titan® (Minneapolis, MN USA) devices were implanted. The mean proximal/distal corporal measurement ratio during corporotomy was 0.93 ± 0.29 while no statistical difference was found among low-, moderate-, and high-volume penile implant centers. A statistically significant correlation between lower proximal/distal measurement ratio and higher age (p = 0.0013), lower BMI (p < 0.0001), lower use of rear tip extenders (RTE) (p = 0.04), lower RTE length (p < 0.0001), and absence of diabetes (p = 0.0004) was reported. In a 3-month follow up period, 49 complications and 37 revision procedures were reported. This is the first study reporting the current practices regarding corporotomy location during IPP placement in a multicenter cohort, particularly when including such a high number of patients. Nevertheless, the retrospective design and the short follow up period limits the study outcomes. Corporotomy location during penoscrotal IPP implantation does not correlate with intraoperative or short-term postoperative complication rates. Future studies with longer follow up are needed in order to evaluate the association of corporotomy location with long-term complications.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Barton GJ, Carlos EC, Lentz AC. Sexual quality of life and satisfaction with penile prostheses. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:178–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jorissen C, De Bruyna H, Baten E, Van Renterghem K. Clinical outcome: patient and partner satisfaction after penile implant surgery. Curr Urol. 2019;13:94–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Palmisano F, Boeri L, Cristini C, Antonini G, Spinelli MG, Franco G, et al. Comparison of infrapubic vs penoscrotal approaches for 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement: do we have a winner?. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:631–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Otero JR, Manfredi C, Wilson SK. The good, the bad, and the ugly about surgical approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Int J Impot Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0319-4. [Epub ahead of print].

  7. Fraile Poblador A, Díaz Pérez D, Hevia Palacios M, Burgos Revilla FJ. Analysis of preoperative and postoperative expectations of penile implant candidates. Actas Urol Esp. 2020;44:345–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Madiraju SK, Wallen JJ, Rydelek SP, Carrion RE, Perito PE, Hakky TS. Biomechanical studies of the inflatable penile prosthesis: a review. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:369–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wallen JJ, Barrera EV, Ge L, Pastuszak AW, Carrion RE, Perito PE, et al. Biomechanical comparison of inflatable penile implants: a cadaveric pilot study. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1034–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mulcahy JJ. The development of modern penile implants. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:177–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pastuszak AW, Lentz AC, Farooq A, Jones L, Bella AJ. Technological improvements in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis design over the past 40 years. J Sex Med. 2015;12:415–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chung E. Penile prosthesis implant: scientific advances and technological innovations over the last four decades. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Houlihan MD, Köhler TS, Wilson SK, Hatzichristodoulou G. Penoscrotal approach for IPP: still up-to-date after more than 40 years? Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Picola Brau N, Torremadé J. Infrapubic surgical approach for penile prosthesis surgery: indications and technique. Actas Urol Esp. 2020;44:301–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Weinberg AC, Pagano MJ, Deibert CM, Valenzuela RJ. Sub-coronal inflatable penile prosthesis placement with modified no-touch technique: a step-by-step approach with outcomes. J Sex Med. 2016;13:270–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mykoniatis I, Osmonov D, van Renterghem K. A modified surgical technique for reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Sex Med. 2020;8:378–82.

  17. Hakky T, Lentz A, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Khera M. The evolution of the inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir and surgical placement. J Sex Med. 2015;12:464–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clavell-Hernández J, Martin C, Wang R. Orgasmic dysfunction following radical prostatectomy: review of current literature. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:124–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Scarzella GI. Cylinder reliability of inflatable penile prosthesis. Experience with distensible and nondistensible cylinders in 325 patients. Urology 1988;31:486–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. DeLay K, Gabrielson A, Yafi F, Hellstrom W. Pd22-06 rear tip extenders during inflatable penile prosthesis placement: impact on need for revision. J Urol. 2017;197:e443–4.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thirumavalavan N, Cordon BH, Gross MS, Taylor J, Eid J-F. Rear tip extenders and penile prosthesis rigidity: a laboratory study of coloplast prostheses. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1030–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thirumavalavan N, Cordon BH, Gross MS, Taylor J, Eid J-F. The rear tip extender for inflatable penile prostheses: introduction of “rigidity factor” and review of the literature. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:516–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Köhler TS, Wen L, Wilson SK. Penile implant infection prevention part 1: what is fact and what is fiction? Wilson’s Workshop #9. Int J Impot Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0326-5. [Epub ahead of print].

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium

    Koenraad van Renterghem, Brecht Jacobs & Ioannis Mykoniatis

  2. University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Koenraad van Renterghem, Brecht Jacobs & Maarten Albersen

  3. Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium

    Koenraad van Renterghem

  4. University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

    Faysal Yafi & John Taylor Barnard

  5. Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany

    Daniar Osmonov

  6. University College London, London, UK

    David Ralph & Luca Venturino

  7. Mayo Clinics, Rochester, MN, USA

    Matthew Ziegelmann

  8. Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Centre, Houston, TX, USA

    Run Wang & Chris Kannady

  9. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    Aaron Lentz

  10. University Hospital Gregorio Maranon, Madrid, Spain

    Enrique Lledo Garcia & Juan Ignacio Martinez Salamanca

  11. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Liege, Liege, Belgium

    Robert Andrianne

  12. University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Carlo Bettochi

  13. Department of Urology, Martha-Maria Hospital, Nuremberg, Germany

    George Hatzichristodoulou

  14. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Centre, Lebanon, NH, USA

    Martin Gross

  15. Centre Urologie Polygone, Montpellier, France

    Antoine Faix

  16. Department of Urology, Hospital Puerta De Hierro Majadahonda & Lyx Institute of Urology, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Romero Otero

  17. University of Torino, Torino, Italy

    Omidreza Sedigh

  18. Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Marij Dinkelman-Smit

Authors
  1. Koenraad van Renterghem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brecht Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Faysal Yafi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniar Osmonov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Ralph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luca Venturino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John Taylor Barnard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Matthew Ziegelmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Run Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Chris Kannady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Aaron Lentz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Enrique Lledo Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Robert Andrianne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Carlo Bettochi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. George Hatzichristodoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Martin Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Antoine Faix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Javier Romero Otero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Juan Ignacio Martinez Salamanca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Omidreza Sedigh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Maarten Albersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Marij Dinkelman-Smit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Ioannis Mykoniatis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioannis Mykoniatis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

van Renterghem, K., Jacobs, B., Yafi, F. et al. Current practices regarding corporotomy localization during penoscrotal inflatable penile implant surgery: a multicenter cohort study. Int J Impot Res 34, 302–307 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00431-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00431-w

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links