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:

Penile prosthesis salvage: a historical look at the Mulcahy technique and a review of the latest literature

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 35, pages 90–94 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Historically, management of inflatable penile prosthesis infection was explantation of the device with delayed reimplantation at a later date. In 1991, this paradigm was challenged when early attempts at washout and immediate salvage proved successful. The clinical experiences and data generated over the past 30 years have allowed implanters to refine their salvage procedures to improve patient outcomes. In this article, we review the original Mulcahy technique for salvage and discuss updates to this protocol based on recent data.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fishman IJ, Scott FB, Selim AM. Rescue procedure: an alternative to complete removal for treatment of infected penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1987;137:202A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufman JM, Kaufman JL, Borges FD. Immediate salvage procedure for infected penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1998;159:816–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brant MD, Ludlow JK, Mulcahy JJ. The prosthesis salvage operation: immediate replacement of the infected penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1996;155:155–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mulcahy JJ. Treatment alternatives for the infected penile implant. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15(Suppl 5):S147–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mulcahy JJ. Long-term experience with salvage of infected penile implants. J Urol. 2000;163:481–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lopategui 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kohler TS, Modder JK, Dupree JM, Bush NC, McVary KT. Malleable implant substitution for the management of penile prosthesis pump erosion: a pilot study. J Sex Med. 2009;6:1474–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gross MS, Phillips EA, Balen A, Eid JF, Yang C, Simon R, et al. The malleable implant salvage technique: infection outcomes after Mulcahy salvage procedure and replacement of infected inflatable penile prosthesis with malleable prosthesis. J Urol. 2016;195:694–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Swords K, Martinez DR, Lockhart JL, Carrion R. A preliminary report on the usage of an intracorporal antibiotic cast with synthetic high purity CaSO4 for the treatment of infected penile implant. J Sex Med. 2013;10:1162–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Martinez DR, Alhammali E, Hakky TS, Carrion R. The “carrion cast”: an intracavernosal antimicrobial cast for the treatment of infected penile implant. J Sex Med. 2014;11:1355–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Herati AS, Lo EM. Penile prosthesis biofilm formation and emerging therapies against them. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7:960–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR II, Carson CC, Silverstein A, Cleves MA, et al. Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2004;172:153–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Silverstein AD, Henry GD, Evans B, Pasmore M, Simmons CJ, Donatucci CF. Biofilm formation on clinically noninfected penile prostheses. J Urol. 2006;176:1008–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR II, Carson CC, Wiygul J, Tornehl C, et al. Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2005;173:89–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Darouiche RO, Bella AJ, Boone TB, Brock G, Broderick GA, Burnett AL, et al. North American consensus document on infection of penile prostheses. Urology. 2013;82:937–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mellon MJ, Broghammer JR, Henry GD. The Mulcahy salvage: past and present innovations. J Sex Med. 2015;12(Suppl 7):432–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pan S, Rodriguez D, Thirumavalavan N, Gross MS, Eid JF, Mulcahy J, et al. The use of antiseptic solutions in the prevention and management of penile prosthesis infections: a review of the cytotoxic and microbiological effects of common irrigation solutions. J Sex Med. 2019;16:781–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dawn LE, Henry GD, Tan GK, Wilson SK. Biofilm and infectious agents present at the time of penile prosthesis revision surgery: times are a changing. Sex Med Rev. 2017;5:236–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gross MS, Phillips EA, Carrasquillo RJ, Thornton A, Greenfield JM, Levine LA, et al. Multicenter investigation of the micro-organisms involved in penile prosthesis infection: an analysis of the efficacy of the AUA and EAU guidelines for penile prosthesis prophylaxis. J Sex Med. 2017;14:455–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mulcahy JJ, Kohler TS, Wen L, Wilson SK. Penile implant infection prevention part II: device coatings have changed the game. Int J Impot Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0338-1.

  21. 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(Suppl 7):415–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Carson CC III, Mulcahy JJ, Harsch MR. Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of followup. J Urol. 2011;185:614–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nehra A, Carson CC III, Chapin AK, Ginkel AM. Long-term infection outcomes of 3-piece antibiotic impregnated penile prostheses used in replacement implant surgery. J Urol. 2012;188:899–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Serefoglu EC, Mandava SH, Gokce A, Chouhan JD, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJ. Long-term revision rate due to infection in hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prostheses: 11-year follow-up. J Sex Med. 2012;9:2182–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mandava SH, Serefoglu EC, Freier MT, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJ. Infection retardant coated inflatable penile prostheses decrease the incidence of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2012;188:1855–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lokeshwar SD, Bitran J, Madhusoodanan V, Kava B, Ramasamy R. A surgeon’s guide to the various antibiotic dips available during penile prosthesis implantation. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dhabuwala C, Sheth S, Zamzow B. Infection rates of rifampin/gentamicin-coated Titan Coloplast penile implants. Comparison with Inhibizone-impregnated AMS penile implants. J Sex Med. 2011;8:315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jani K, Smith C, Delk JR II, Carson CC, Donatucci CF, Cleves MA, et al. Infection retardant coatings impact on bacterial presence in penile prosthesis surgery: a multicenter study. Urology. 2018;119:104–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mishra K, Bukavina L, Long L, Sherif R, Gupta S, Muncey W, et al. Do antifungals and local anesthetic affect the efficacy of antibiotic dipping solution? J Sex Med. 2021;18:966–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Derouet H, Uder M, Freyfogle EB, Stoeckle M. Successful conservative treatment of infected penile prostheses [correction of protheses]. Eur Urol. 2002;41:66–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Habous M, Farag M, Williamson B, Laban O, Mahmoud S, Abdelwahab O, et al. Conservative therapy is an effective option in patients with localized infection after penile implant surgery. J Sex Med. 2016;13:972–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Cefalu CA, Deng X, Zhao LC, Scott JF, Mehta S, Morey AF. Safety of the “drain and retain” option for defunctionalized urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs during artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery: 5-year experience. Urology. 2013;82:1436–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Reddy AG, Tsambarlis PN, Koller CR, Hellstrom WJG. Complex penile prosthesis reservoir extraction: a case series. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:122–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Maatman TJ, Montague DK. Intracorporeal drainage after removal of infected penile prostheses. Urology. 1984;23:184–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zargaroff S, Sharma V, Berhanu D, Pearl JA, Meeks JJ, Dupree JM, et al. National trends in the treatment of penile prosthesis infections by explantation alone vs. immediate salvage and reimplantation. J Sex Med. 2014;11:1078–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Urology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA

    Amanda R. Swanton & Martin S. Gross

  2. Department of Urology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Ricardo M. Munarriz

  3. Department of Urology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    John J. Mulcahy

Authors
  1. Amanda R. Swanton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin S. Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ricardo M. Munarriz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John J. Mulcahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ARS and JJM contributed to the writing of the manuscript. MSG, RMM, and JJM contributed to the conception of the paper. All authors contributed to revising and editing the manuscript for final publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin S. Gross.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

RMM, MSG, and JJM are consultants/speakers for Coloplast. JJM is a speaker/consultant for 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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Swanton, A.R., Gross, M.S., Munarriz, R.M. et al. Penile prosthesis salvage: a historical look at the Mulcahy technique and a review of the latest literature. Int J Impot Res 35, 90–94 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00515-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00515-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links