Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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:

Short-term revision rate of Rigicon Testi10TM testicular prosthesis in adolescents and adults: a retrospective chart review


Testicular prosthesis implantation is a valuable solution for the physical, cosmetic, and psychological challenges associated with testicular loss which may affect males of any age. We evaluated the safety and reliability of the new Rigicon Testi10TM testicular prosthesis in adults and adolescents by performing an IRB-approved retrospective study of data drawn from Patient Information Forms (PIFs). A total of 427 patients (382 adults and 45 adolescents) had at least one testicular prosthesis implanted. Only one adult patient required revision surgery due to rupture of the Rigicon Testi10 TM saline-filled prosthesis. A 40-year-old patient was found to have a leaking prosthesis approximately one week postoperatively, which was suspected to be due to inadvertently punctured by the surgeon during the sterile saline filling process. There were no post-implantation revisions required for adolescent patients. According to our results, Kaplan–Meier calculation of survival from removal or revision was 99.8% for all patients at 54 months (99.7% for adults and 100% for adolescents). The complication rates among patients in this study are lower than those reported in previous published studies. Our study underscores the generally safe nature of testicular prosthesis implantation, as well as the very rare incidence of revision surgery for this new device.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data generated during this study can be found within the published article or can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


  1. Favorito LA, Klojda CA, Sampaio FJ. Congenital absence of the testis in human fetuses and in cryptorchid patients. Int J Urol. 2004;11:1110–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Echeverría Sepúlveda MP, Yankovic Barceló F, López Egaña PJ. The undescended testis in children and adolescents part 2: evaluation and therapeutic approach. Pediatr Surg Int. 2022;38:789–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pesce C, Reale A, Sanguineti G. The pathology of testicular atrophy. Pathol Immunopathol Res. 1986;5:500–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dax V, Ftanou M, Tran B, Lewin J, Wallace R, Seidler Z, et al. The impact of testicular cancer and its treatment on masculinity: A systematic review. Psychooncology. 2022;31:1459–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hampl D, Koifman L, de Almeida R, Ginsberg M, Sampaio FJB, Favorito LA. Testicular torsion: a modified surgical technique for immediate intravaginal testicular prosthesis implant. Int Braz J Urol. 2021;47:1219–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Marshall S. Potential problems with testicular prostheses. Urology. 1986;28:388–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Niedzielski J, Nowak M, Kucharski P, Marchlewska K, Słowikowska-Hilczer J. Testicular, Epididymal and Vasal Anomalies in Pediatric Patients with Cryptorchid Testes and Testes with Communicating Hydrocele. J Clin Med. 2022;11:3015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bodiwala D, Summerton DJ, Terry TR. Testicular prostheses: development and modern usage. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89:349–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Money J, Sollod R. Body image, plastic surgery (prosthetic testes) and Kallmann’s syndrome. Br J Med Psychol. 1978;51:91–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Peycelon M, Rossignol G, Muller CO, Carricaburu E, Philippe-Chomette P, Paye-Jaouen A, et al. Testicular prostheses in children: Is earlier better? J Pediatr Urol. 2016;12:237.e1–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bush NC, Bagrodia A. Initial results for combined orchiectomy and prosthesis exchange for unsalvageable testicular torsion in adolescents: description of intravaginal prosthesis placement at orchiectomy. J Urol. 2012;188:1424–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rose M, Aberg M, Bohn J. Testicular prosthetic implants in boys and teenagers with primary or secondary anorchism. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2008;42:101–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Turek PJ, Master VA. Safety and effectiveness of a new saline filled testicular prosthesis. J Urol. 2004;172:1427–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tsvetkov D, Tsvetkova P. Congenital anorchism – the diagnostic and treatment problems. Akush Ginekol. 1990;29:45–51.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Elder JS, Keating MA, Duckett JW. Infant testicular prostheses. J Urol. 1989;141:1413–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hayon S, Michael J, Coward RM. The modern testicular prosthesis: patient selection and counseling, surgical technique, and outcomes. Asian J Androl. 2020;22:64–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kogan S. The clinical utility of testicular prosthesis placement in children with genital and testicular disorders. Transl Androl Urol. 2014;3:391–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mohammed A, Yassin M, Hendry D, Walker G. Contemporary practice of testicular prosthesis insertion. Arab J Urol. 2015;13:282–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Girsdansky J, Newman HF. Use of a vitallium testicular implant. Am J Surg. 1941;53:514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rea CE. An evaluation of therapy for the undescended testis. J Tn State Med Assoc. 1961;54:75–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hazzard CT. The development of a new testicular prosthesis. J Urol. 1953;70:959–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Baumrucker GO. Testicular prosthesis for an intracapsular orchiectomy. J Urol. 1957;77:756–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Prentiss RJ, Boatwright DC, Pennington RD, Hohn WF, Schwartz MH. Testicular prosthesis: materials, methods and results. J Urol. 1963;90:208–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lattimer JK, Vakili BF, Smith AM, Morishima A. A natural-feeling testicular prosthesis. J Urol. 1973;110:81–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Henderson J, Culkin D, Mata J, Wilson M, Venable D. Analysis of immunological alterations associated with testicular prostheses. J Urol. 1995;154:1748–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Robinson OG Jr, Bradley EL, Wilson DS. Analysis of explanted silicone implants: a report of 300 patients. Ann Plast Surg. 1995;34:1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yossepowitch O, Aviv D, Wainchwaig L, Baniel J. Testicular prostheses for testis cancer survivors: patient perspectives and predictors of long-term satisfaction. J Urol. 2011;186:2249–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Adshead J, Khoubehi B, Wood J, Rustin G. Testicular implants and patient satisfaction: a questionnaire-based study of men after orchidectomy for testicular cancer. BJU Int. 2001;88:559–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pidutti R, Morales A. Silicone gel-filled testicular prosthesis and systemic disease. Urology. 1993;42:155–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Genest H, Guidoin R, Plante R, Gosselin C, Blais P, Robert G, et al. Analyse d’implants testiculaires en silicone après exérèse [Analysis of silicone testicular implants after explantation]. J Urol. 1982;88:337–43.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Osemlak P, Jędrzejewski G, Cielecki C, Kalińska-Lipert A, Wieczorek A, Nachulewicz P. The use of testicular prostheses in boys. Medicine. 2018;97:e13911

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Wilson SK, Haxhimolla H, Kua B, Testa G, Love C, Rossello M, et al. Survival From Revision Surgery for New Rigicon Infla10 Three-piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Is Comparable to Preceding Devices. Urology. 2023;180:257–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE. Efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. AMS 700CX Study Group. J Urol. 2000;164:376–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR 2nd. Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced Mentor Alpha I penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1999;162:715–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wilson SK, Wen L, Rossello M, Maria P, Carrion R, Perito P, et al. Initial safety outcomes for the Rigicon Infla10® inflatable penile prosthesis. BJU Int. 2023;131:729–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors have made substantial contributions to this work. All authors (BLA, DK, SKW, OK, RSP, CMV, ND, MSG) were involved in the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work, with final statistical analyses performed by OK. SKW, BLA, OK & MSG all contributed to drafting the manuscript and revised it critically for important intellectual content including final approval of the version to be published. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin S. Gross.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

DK is a paid employee of Rigicon responsible for PIF data assemblage. SW is a consultant for Rigicon. All other authors have nothing to disclose related to this article.

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

Atwater, B.L., Kirkik, D., Wilson, S.K. et al. Short-term revision rate of Rigicon Testi10TM testicular prosthesis in adolescents and adults: a retrospective chart review. Int J Impot Res (2024).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


Quick links