Inflatable penile prostheses may be a solution for patients with erectile dysfunction. To our knowledge, no data exist regarding the effect of different surgical approaches used during implantation on the site of the corporotomy. The main purpose of this multicentre study was to investigate the influence of different surgical approaches on the corporotomy site.
Data were collected from six expert implant surgeons. Surgical notes were searched for the incision site, proximal, distal and total corporal length measurement, total cylinder length, length of rear tip extenders, surgery time, type of implant, and reservoir placement. The association between the proximal/distal corporal length and the recorded covariates was examined using a linear mixed model.
A total of 1757 patients who underwent virgin prosthesis implantation were included in the analysis. Analysis of proximal/distal measurements was performed on 1709 patients. The proximal/distal ratio had a mean of 0.8 ± 0.3 in penoscrotal incisions (n = 391), 0.7 ± 0.2 in infrapubic incisions (n = 832) and 0.7 ± 0.2 in subcoronal (n = 486) incisions. We observed no significant differences in proximal/distal measurements between the highest-volume surgeons.
We could not draw a firm conclusion about the difference in corporotomy site between different surgical approaches, but we found no significant difference between the highest-volume surgeons using different techniques.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 8 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $32.38 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence. Use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2:80–2.
Antonini G, Busetto GM, De Berardinis E, Giovannone R, Vicini P, Del Giudice F, et al. Minimally invasive infrapubic inflatable penile prosthesis implant for erectile dysfunction: evaluation of efficacy, satisfaction profile and complications. Int J Impot Res 2016;28:4–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2015.33.
Barton GJ, Carlos EC, Lentz AC. Sexual quality of life and satisfaction with penile prostheses. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:178–88.
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.
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.
van Renterghem K, Jacobs B, Yafi F, Osmonov D, Ralph D, Venturino L, et al. Current practices regarding corporotomy localization during penoscrotal inflatable penile implant surgery: a multicenter cohort study. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34:302–7.
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.
Picola Brau N, Torremadé J. Infrapubic surgical approach for penile prosthesis surgery: Indications and technique. Actas Urol Esp. 2020;44:301–8.
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.
Chung E. Penile prosthesis implant: scientific advances and technological innovations over the last four decades. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:37–45.
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. 2022;34:128–37.
Gregory JG, Purcell MH, Standeven J. The inflatable penile prosthesis: failure of the rear tip extender in reducing the incidence of cylinder leakage. J Urol. 1984;131:668–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)50569-8.
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.
Scarzella GI. Cylinder reliability of inflatable penile prosthesis. Experience with distensible and nondistensible cylinders in 325 patients. Urology. 1988;31:486–9.
Malloy TR, Wein AJ, Carpiniello VL. Improved mechanical survival with revised model inflatable penile prosthesis using rear-tip extenders. J Urol. 1982;128:489–91.
Kenneth DeLay, Andrew Gabrielson, Faysal Yafi, Wayne Hellstrom. Pd22-06 rear tip extenders during inflatable penile prosthesis placement: impact on need for revision. J Urol. 2017;197:e443–4.
Lynn R. Rushton’s r–K life history theory of race differences in penis length and circumference examined in 113 populations. Personal Individ Differ. 2013;55:261–6.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Lauwers, N.L., Van Renterghem, K., Osmonov, D. et al. Analysis of the effects of different surgical approaches on corporotomy localization in inflatable penile implant surgery performed by expert implant surgeons. Int J Impot Res 35, 539–543 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00593-1
This article is cited by
Majority of erectile dysfunction patients would have preferred earlier implantation of their penile prosthesis: validation of the recently changed EAU guidelines
International Journal of Impotence Research (2022)