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 implants in low flow priapism

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 35, pages 651–663 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

A Correction to this article was published on 07 December 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Priapism is a persistent or prolonged erection, in the absence of sexual stimulation, that fails to subside. Prolonged ischaemic or low flow priapism is defined as a full or partial erection persisting for more than 4 h and unrelated to sexual interest or stimulation, characterised by little or no cavernous blood flow. Low flow priapism leads to progressive corporal fibrosis, which could, in turn, lead to long-lasting erectile dysfunction if left untreated. Penile prosthesis implantation is recognised as a management option in refractory and delayed low flow priapism for restoring erectile function with high patient satisfaction rates. However, the ensuing corporal fibrotic scarring poses a surgical challenge to clinicians, given the higher complication rates in this patient subset. Postoperative patient satisfaction has been closely linked to preoperative expectations and perceived loss of penile length. Therefore, thorough patient counselling concerning the risk and benefits of penile implants should be a priority for all clinicians. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus on the ideal prosthesis choice and procedural timing in refractory low flow priapism. In this review, we will examine the existing literature on penile implants in patients with priapism and discuss the options for managing complications associated with penile prosthesis surgery.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Salonia A, Bettocchi C, Carvalho J, Corona G, Jones TH, Kadioglu A, et al. Sexual and reproductive health EAU Guidelines. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Sexual and Reproductive Health-2022. 2022. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/sexual-and-reproductive-health.

  2. Broderick GA, Kadioglu A, Bivalacqua TJ, Ghanem H, Nehra A, Shamloul R. Priapism: pathogenesis, epidemiology, and management. J Sex Med. 2010;7:476–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2009.01625.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roghmann F, Becker A, Sammon JD, Ouerghi M, Sun M, Sukumar S, et al. Incidence of priapism in emergency departments in the United States. J Urol. 2013;190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.118.

  4. Kulmala RV, Tamella TL. Effects of priapism lasting 24 h or longer caused by intracavernosal injection of vasoactive drugs. Int J Imp Res. 1995;7:131–6. https://europepmc.org/article/med/7496442.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bivalacqua TJ, Allen BK, Brock GB, Broderick GA, Chou R, Kohler TS. et al. The diagnosis and management of recurrent ischemic priapism, priapism in sickle cell patients, and non-ischemic priapism: an AUA/SMSNA guideline. J Urol. 2022;208:43–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002767.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ralph DJ, Borley NC, Allen C, Kirkham A, Freeman A, Minhas S. et al. The use of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients presenting with priapism. BJU Int. 2010;106:1714–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1464-410X.2010.09368.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zacharakis E, Raheem AA, Freeman A, Skolarikos A, Garaffa G, Christopher AN. et al. The efficacy of the T-shunt procedure and intracavernous tunneling (snake maneuver) for refractory ischemic priapism. J Urol. 2014;191:164–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2013.07.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bennett N, Mulhall J. Sickle cell disease status and outcomes of African–American men presenting with priapism. J Sex Med. 2008;5:1244–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2008.00770.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Biebel MG, Gross MS, Munarriz R. Review of ischemic and non-ischemic priapism. Curr Urol Rep. 2022;23:143–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11934-022-01096-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Spycher MA, Hauri D. The ultrastructure of the erectile tissue in priapism. J Urol. 1986;135:142–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)45549-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Capogrosso P, Dimitropolous K, Russo GI, Tharakan T, Milenkovic U, Cocci A, et al. Conservative and medical treatments of non-sickle cell disease-related ischemic priapism: a systematic review by the EAU Sexual and Reproductive Health Panel. Int J Impot Res. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00592-2.

  12. Capece M, La Rocca R, Mirone V, Bivalacqua TJ, Castiglione F, Albersen M. et al. A systematic review on ischemic priapism and immediate implantation: do we need more data?. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:530–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SXMR.2018.10.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zacharakis E, Garaffa G, Raheem AA, Christopher AN, Muneer A, Ralph DJ. Penile prosthesis insertion in patients with refractory ischaemic priapism: early vs delayed implantation. BJU Int. 2014;114:576–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJU.12686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shaeer O. Surgical techniques: penoscopy: optical corporotomy and resection for prosthesis implantation in cases of penile fibrosis, Shaeer’s technique. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1214–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2007.00582.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson MJ, Kristinsson S, Ralph O, Chiriaco G, Ralph D. The surgical management of ischaemic priapism. Int J Imp Res. 2019;32:81–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0197-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Milenkovic U, Cocci A, Veeratterapillay R, Dimitropoulos K, Boeri L, Capogrosso P. et al. Surgical and minimally invasive treatment of ischaemic and non-ischaemic priapism: a systematic review by the EAU Sexual and Reproductive Health Guidelines panel. Int J Imp Res. 2022;20:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00604-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zacharakis E, De Luca F, Raheem AA, Garaffa G, Christopher N, Muneer A, et al. Early insertion of a malleable penile prosthesis in ischaemic priapism allows later upsizing of the cylinders. Scand J Urol. 2015;49:468–71. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2015.1059359.

  18. Barham DW, Chang C, Hammad M, Pyrgidis N, Swerdloff D, Gross K. et al. Delayed placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis is associated with a high complication rate in men with a history of ischemic priapism. J Sex Med. 2023;20:1052–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/JSXMED/QDAD075.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hebert KL, Yafi FA, Wilson S. Inflatable penile prosthesis implantation into scarred corporal bodies: timing may decrease postoperative problems. BJU Int. 2020;125:168–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJU.14859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kılıçarslan H, Kaynak Y, Gökcen K, Coşkun B, Kaygısız O. Comparison of patient satisfaction rates for the malleable and two piece-inflatable penile prostheses. Turk J Urol. 2014;40:207. https://doi.org/10.5152/TUD.2014.37108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bayrak O, Erturhan S, Seckiner I, Ozturk M, Sen H, Erbagci A. Comparison of the patient’s satisfaction underwent penile prosthesis; Malleable versus Ambicor: Single center experience. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020;92:25–9. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.1.25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Montague DK, Angermeier KW. Corporeal excavation: new technique for penile prosthesis implantation in men with severe corporeal fibrosis. Urology. 2006;67:1072–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2005.11.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ralph DJ, Garaffa G, Muneer A, Freeman A, Rees R, Christopher AN. et al. The immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis for acute ischaemic priapism. Eur Urol. 2009;56:1033–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2008.09.044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Capece M, Falcone M, Cai T, Palmieri A, Cocci A, La Rocca R. Penile prosthesis implantation in refractory ischaemic priapism: patient selection and special considerations. Res Rep Urol. 2022;14:1–6. https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S278807.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sedigh O, Rolle L, Negro CLA, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Galletto E, et al. Early insertion of inflatable prosthesis for intractable ischemic priapism: our experience and review of the literature. Int J Impot Res. 2011;23:158–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/IJIR.2011.23.

  26. Hinds PR, Wilson SK, Sadeghi-Nejad H. Dilemmas of inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery: what practices achieve the best outcomes and the lowest infection rates? (CME). J Sex Med. 2012;9:2483–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2012.02932.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Krughoff K, Bearelly P, Apoj M, Munarriz NA, Thirumavalavan N, Pan S. et al. Multicenter surgical outcomes of penile prosthesis placement in patients with corporal fibrosis and review of the literature. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34:86–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41443-020-00373-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Baumgarten AS, VanDyke ME, Yi YA, Keith CG, Fuchs JS, Ortiz NM, et al. Favourable multi-institutional experience with penoscrotal decompression for prolonged ischaemic priapism. BJU Int. 2020;126. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15127.

  29. Garaffa G, Ralph DJ. Penile prosthesis implantation in acute and chronic priapism. Sex Med Rev. 2013;1:76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/SMRJ.10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chung E, Bettocchi C, Egydio P, Love C, Osmonov D, Park S. et al. The International Penile Prosthesis Implant Consensus Forum: clinical recommendations and surgical principles on the inflatable 3-piece penile prosthesis implant. Nat Rev Urol. 2022;19:534–46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-022-00607-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cayetano-Alcaraz AA, Tharakan T, Chen R, Sofikitis N, Minhas S. The management of erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes mellitus unresponsive to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. Andrology. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1111/ANDR.13257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nahrstadt BC. Informed consent for penile prosthesis. Int J Imp Res. 2008;21:37–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2008.63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hellstrom WJG, Montague DK, Moncada I, Carson C, Minhas S, Faria G. et al. Implants, mechanical devices, and vascular surgery for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2010;7:501–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2009.01626.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Carson CC, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2010.09.094.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Natali A, Olianas R, Fisch M. Penile implantation in Europe: successes and complications with 253 implants in Italy and Germany. J Sex Med. 2008;5:1503–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2008.00819.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ferguson KH, Cespedes RD. Prospective long-term results and quality-of-life assessment after Dura-II penile prosthesis placement. Urology. 2003;61:437–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02270-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Levine LA, Estrada CR, Morgentaler A. Mechanical reliability and safety of, and patient satisfaction with the Ambicor inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a 2 center study. J Urol. 2001;166:932–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65867-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lux M, Reyes-Vallejo L, Morgentaler A, Levine LA. Outcomes and satisfaction rates for the redesigned 2-piece penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2007;177:262–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2006.08.094.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Montorsi F, Rigatti P, Carmignani G, Corbu C, Campo B, Ordesi G. et al. AMS three-piece inflatable implants for erectile dysfunction: a long-term multi-institutional study in 200 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2000;37:50–5. https://doi.org/10.1159/000020099.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rajpurkar A, Dhabuwala CB. Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice. J Urol. 2003;170:159–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000072524.82345.6D.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Narang GL, Figler BD, Coward RM. Preoperative counseling and expectation management for inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:S869–80. https://doi.org/10.21037/TAU.2017.07.04.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Chason J, Sausville J, Kramer AC. Penile prosthesis implantation compares favorably in malpractice outcomes to other common urological procedures: findings from a malpractice insurance database. J Sex Med. 2009;6:2111–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2009.01317.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stelfox HT, Gandhi TK, Orav EJ, Gustafson ML. The relation of patient satisfaction with complaints against physicians and malpractice lawsuits. Am J Med. 2005;118:1126–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMJMED.2005.01.060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Martínez-Salamanca JI, Mueller A, Moncada I, Carballido J, Mulhall JP. Penile prosthesis surgery in patients with corporal fibrosis: a state of the art review. J Sex Med. 2011;8:1880–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2011.02281.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tsambarlis PN, Chaus F, Levine LA. Successful placement of penile prostheses in men with severe corporal fibrosis following vacuum therapy protocol. J Sex Med. 2017;14:44–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSXM.2016.11.304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Garber BB, Lim C. Inflatable penile prosthesis insertion in men with severe intracorporal fibrosis. Curr Urol. 2017;10:92. https://doi.org/10.1159/000447158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Lopes EJA, Kuwano AY, Guimaraes AN, Flores JP, Jacobino MAO. Corporoplasty using bovine pericardium grafts in complex penile prosthesis implantation surgery. Int Braz J Urol. 2009;35:49–53. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-55382009000100008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shaeer O. Implantation of penile prosthesis in cases of corporeal fibrosis: modified Shaeer’s excavation technique. J Sex Med. 2008;5:2470–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2008.00912.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Durazi MH, Jalal AA. Penile prosthesis implantation for treatment of postpriapism erectile dysfunction. Urol J. 2008;5:115–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Park JK, Kim HJ, Kang MH, Jeong YB. Implantation of penile prosthesis in a patient with severe corporeal fibrosis induced by cavernosal injection therapy. Int J Impot Res. 2002;14:545–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/SJ.IJIR.3900930.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ghanem H, Ghazy S, El-Meliegy A. Corporeal counter incisions: a simplified approach to penile prosthesis implantation in fibrotic cases. Int J Imp Res. 2000;12:153–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900517.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Rajpurkar A, LI Haikun, Dhabuwala CB. Penile implant success in patients with corporal fibrosis using multiple incisions and minimal scar tissue excision. Urology. 1999;54:145–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00060-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Knoll LD, Furlow WL, Benson RC, Bilhartz DL. Management of nondilatable cavernous fibrosis with the use of a downsized inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1995;153:366–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199502000-00020.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Salman B, Elsherif E, Elgharabawy M, Badawy A. Early versus delayed penile prosthesis insertion for refractory ischemic priapism. https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2022.2135290.

  55. Palmisano F, Vagnoni V, Franceschelli A, Gentile G, Colombo F. Immediate insertion of a soft penile prosthesis as a new option for a safe and cost-effective treatment of refractory ischemic priapism. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021;93:356–60. https://doi.org/10.4081/AIUA.2021.3.356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Johnson M, Hallerstrom M, Chiriaco G, Johnson T, Zacharakis E, Raheem A, et al. Pd44-01 a comparison between early and delayed penile prosthesis insertion in men with refractory ischaemic priapism. J Urol. 2019;201. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556615.02106.6C.

  57. Zacharakis E, de Luca F, Raheem AA, Garaffa G, Christopher N, Muneer A. et al. Early insertion of a malleable penile prosthesis in ischaemic priapism allows later upsizing of the cylinders. Scand J Urol. 2015;49:468–71. https://doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2015.1059359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tausch TJ, Zhao LC, Morey AF, Siegel JA, Belsante MJ, Seideman CA. et al. Malleable penile prosthesis is a cost-effective treatment for refractory ischemic priapism. J Sex Med. 2015;12:824–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/JSM.12803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Faddan AA, Aksenov AV, Naumann CM, Jünemann KP, Osmonov DK. Semi-rigid penile prosthesis as a salvage management of idiopathic ischemic stuttering priapism. Res Rep Urol. 2015;2015:137–41. https://doaj.org/article/8856d800a20a45cab82cbc8e94620626.

  60. Salem EA, el Aasser O. Management of ischemic priapism by penile prosthesis insertion: prevention of distal erosion. J Urol. 2010;183:2300–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2010.02.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rees RW, Kalsi J, Minhas S, Peters J, Kell P, Ralph DJ. The management of low-flow priapism with the immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis. BJU Int. 2002;90:893–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1464-410X.2002.03058.X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Fuchs JS, Shakir N, McKibben MJ, Mathur S, Teeple S, Scott JM. et al. Penoscrotal decompression-promising new treatment paradigm for refractory ischemic priapism. J Sex Med. 2018;15:797–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSXM.2018.02.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Razzaghi MR, Rezaei A, Javanmard B, Mazloomfard MM, Lotfi B. S105 the immediate insertion of a penile prosthesis for prolonged ischemic priapism. Eur Urol Suppl. 2010;9:584. https://www.academia.edu/5587502/S105_THE_IMMEDIATE_INSERTION_OF_A_PENILE_PROSTHESIS_FOR_PROLONGED_ISCHEMIC_PRIAPISM.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sundaram CP, Fernandes ET, Ercole C, Billups KL. Management of refractory priapism with penile prostheses. Br J Urol. 1997;79:659. https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1464-410X.1997.00168.X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Mireku-Boateng A, Jackson AG. Penile prosthesis in the management of priapism. Urol Int. 1989;44:247–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000281515.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Trost LW, Baum N, Hellstrom WJG. Managing the difficult penile prosthesis patient. J Sex Med. 2013;10:893–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/JSM.12115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Helo S, Clavell-Hernandez J, Wilson SK, Köhler TS. Penile prosthesis implantation in complex and previously failed settings. Textbook Male Genitourethral Reconstruction. 2020;589–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21447-0_46.

  68. Dropkin BM, Chertack NA, Nealon SW, Joice GA, Morey AF. The hostile penis: managing the patient with corporal fibrosis. Penile Implant Surg. 2022;97–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82363-4_7.

  69. Yücel ÖB, Pazır Y, Kadıoğlu A. Penile prosthesis implantation in priapism. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:310–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SXMR.2017.08.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Welliver RC, Fonseca AN, West BL, McVary KT, Köhler TS. Autoinflation leading to failure of two-piece ambicor implantable penile prosthesis: an outcome from a methodical treatment of recalcitrant stuttering priapism. Case Rep Urol. 2014;2014:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/529037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Levine LA, Becher E, Bella A, Brant W, Kohler T, Martinez-Salamanca JI. et al. Penile prosthesis surgery: current recommendations from the international consultation on sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2016;13:489–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSXM.2016.01.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Eid JF. No-touch technique. J Sex Med. 2011;8:5–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1743-6109.2010.02137.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Eid JF. Penile implant: review of a ‘no-touch’ technique. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:294–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SXMR.2016.01.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Lee I, Agarwal RK, Lee BY, Fishman NO, Umscheid CA. Systematic review and cost analysis comparing use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis to prevent surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31:1219–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/657134.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Sidabutar KE, Wallen JJ, Henry GD. Critical analysis of maneuvers to reduce infection in penile implant surgery. Penile Implant Surg. 2022:17–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82363-4_2.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK

    Musaab Yassin

  2. Department of Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

    Musaab Yassin, Michael Ager, Elsayed Desouky & Suks Minhas

  3. Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Runzhi Chen

  4. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK

    Suks Minhas

Authors
  1. Musaab Yassin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Runzhi Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Ager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elsayed Desouky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Suks Minhas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MY: design, literature review, helped write and revise the manuscript; RC: design, literature review, helped write the manuscript; MA: literature review; ED: literature review, helped write the manuscript; SM: design, helped write the manuscript, helped revise the manuscript

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Musaab Yassin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yassin, M., Chen, R., Ager, M. et al. Penile implants in low flow priapism. Int J Impot Res 35, 651–663 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00787-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00787-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links