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:

Penile prosthesis implantation: a systematic review of intraoperative and postoperative complications

International Journal of Impotence Research (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the most frequently reported male sexual dysfunction. Penile prosthesis implantation (PPI) is an effective solution for patients with medically refractory ED. Despite advancements in surgical techniques and device technology, detailed evidence on PPI complication rates is limited. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, including literature from Medline, Embase, Cochrane Libraries, and clinicaltrial.gov from 2000 to October 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized comparative studies, and case series with ≥5 participants. Adult male patients (≥18 years) undergoing PPI for ED, Peyronie’s disease, or priapism were considered. Eligible interventions included malleable and hydraulic (two- or three-piece) prosthesis implantation, device explantation and reimplantation, and PPI combined with penile curvature correction. Primary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complication rates. Of the 1370 studies initially identified, 151 met inclusion criteria, encompassing a total of 92,777 patients. Device infections were reported in 103 studies, with rates ranging from 0.03–14.3%, predominantly under 5%. Erosion rates spanned 0.02–32.5%, with most studies reporting rates below 5%. Mechanical failure rates were highly variable, exceeding 15% in about half the studies with follow-up periods of 5 to 11 years. Intraoperative complications such as urethral injury and corporeal perforation were uncommon but occurred more frequently in patients with severe fibrosis, including those with priapism. Neurological comorbidities were associated with an elevated risk of mechanical failure, while diabetic patients did not exhibit a significantly increased infection risk compared to the general population. Modern techniques and coated devices have reduced infection and erosion rates. However, mechanical failure remains a concern, emphasizing the need for technological advancements. Tailored device selection and comprehensive pre- and postoperative management are critical to reducing revision rates and improving outcomes. Future research should address gaps in surgical approach optimization and complication management.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou DG, Krane RJ, McKinlay JB. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the massachusetts male aging study. J Urol. 1994;151:54–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rojanasarot S, Williams AO, Edwards N, Khera M. Quantifying the number of US men with erectile dysfunction who are potential candidates for penile prosthesis implantation. Sex Med. 2023;11:010.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Salonia A, Bettocchi C, Boeri L, Capogrosso P, Carvalho J, Cilesiz NC, et al. European association of urology guidelines on sexual and reproductive health—2021 update: male sexual dysfunction[Formula presented]. Eur Urol. 2021;80:333–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Miller LE, Khera M, Bhattacharyya S, Patel M, Nitschelm K, Burnett AL. Long-term survival rates of inflatable penile prostheses: systematic review and meta-analysis. Urology. 2022;166:6–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilson SK, Zumbe J, Henry GD, Salem EA, Delk JR, Cleves MA. Infection reduction using antibiotic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 2007;70:337–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Eid JF, Wilson SK, Cleves M, Salem EA. Coated implants and “no Touch” surgical technique decreases risk of infection in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation to 0.46%. Urology. 2012;79:1310–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loh-Doyle JC, Lin JS, Doumanian LR, Patil MB, Boyd SD. Outcomes of alternative reservoir placement in the lateral retroperitoneum during inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Urology. 2021;152:35–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Frydman V, Pinar U, Abdessater M, Akakpo W, Grande P, Audouin M, et al. Long-term outcomes after penile prosthesis placement for the management of erectile dysfunction: a single-Centre experience. Basic Clin Androl. 2021;31:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Colombo F, Gentile G, Vagnoni V, Fiorillo A, Piazza P, Sartorio F, et al. Initial experience of a single center with the use of ZSI 475 penile prosthesis. Asian J Urol. 2021;8:176–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Di Pierro GB, Lemma A, Di Lascio G, El Motassime A, Grande P, Di Giulio I, et al. Primary versus revision implant for inflatable penile prosthesis: a propensity score-matched comparison. Andrologia. 2021;53:14240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Scarberry KA, Thomas GM, Cowper M, Chouhan JD, Thakker PU, Matz EL, et al. Sustained glycemic control observed in diabetic men who improve hemoglobin A1c values to allow for elective penile prosthesis placement. Urology. 2020;146:140–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Baumgarten AS, Kavoussi M, VanDyke ME, Ortiz NM, Khouri RK, Ward EE, et al. Avoiding deep pelvic complications using a ‘Five-Step’ technique for high submuscular placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs. BJU Int. 2020;126:457–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hatzichristodoulou G, Yang DY, Ring JD, Hebert KJ, Ziegelman MJ, Köhler TS. Multicenter experience using collagen fleece for plaque incision with grafting to correct residual curvature at the time of inflatable penile prosthesis placement in patients with Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2020;17:1168–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Weinberg AC, Siegelbaum MH, Lerner BD, Schwartz BC, Segal RL. Inflatable penile prosthesis in the ambulatory surgical setting: outcomes from a large urological group practice. J Sex Med. 2020;17:1025–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fuentes JL, Yi YA, Davenport MT, Bergeson RL, Ward EE, Morey AF. Long-term sequelae of inflatable penile prosthesis: clinical characteristics of patients who develop distal cylinder tip extrusion. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:38–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Fernández-Pascual E, Gonzalez-García FJ, Rodríguez-Monsalve M, Turo J, Martínez-Ballesteros C, Carballido J, et al. Surgical technique for complex cases of peyronie’s disease with implantation of penile prosthesis, multiple corporeal incisions, and grafting with collagen fleece. J Sex Med. 2019;16:323–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Falcone M, Preto M, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Garaffa G, Sedigh O, et al. A comparative study between 2 different grafts used as patches after plaque incision and inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for end-stage Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2018;15:848–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kavoussi NL, Viers BR, VanDyke ME, Pagliara TJ, Morey AF. “Stiction Syndrome”: non-operative management of patients with difficult AMS 700 series inflation. J Sex Med. 2017;14:1079–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pineda M, Burnett AL. Distinguishing failure to cure from complication after penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med. 2017;14:731–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Blewniewski M, Ostrowski I, Pottek T, Neugart F, Ciechan J, Llorens C, et al. Safety and efficacy outcomes of ZSI 475 penile prosthesis. Urologia J. 2017;84:98–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Garber BB, Lim C. Inflatable penile prosthesis insertion in men with severe intracorporal fibrosis. Curr Urol. 2017;10:92–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Pescatori E, Alei G, Antonini G, Avolio A, Bettocchi C, Bitelli M, et al. INSIST-ED: Italian society of andrology registry on penile prosthesis surgery. First data analysis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016;88:122–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Karpman E, Brant WO, Kansas B, Bella AJ, Jones LRA, Eisenhart E, et al. Reservoir alternate surgical implantation technique: preliminary outcomes of initial PROPPER study of low profile or spherical reservoir implantation in submuscular location or traditional prevesical space. J Urol. 2015;193:239–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bozkurt IH, Arslan B, Yonguç T, Kozacioglu Z, Degirmenci T, Gunlusoy B, et al. Patient and partner outcome of inflatable and semi-rigid penile prosthesis in a single institution. Int Braz J Urol. 2015;41:535–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Stember DS, Garber BB, Perito PE. Outcomes of abdominal wall reservoir placement in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a safe and efficacious alternative to the space of retzius. J Sex Med. 2014;11:605–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Grewal S, Vetter J, Brandes SB, Strope SA. A population-based analysis of contemporary rates of reoperation for penile prosthesis procedures. Urology. 2014;84:112–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Simsek A, Kucuktopcu O, Ozgor F, Ozkuvanci U, Baykal M, Sarilar O, et al. Self and partner satisfaction rates after 3 part inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2014;86:219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Morey AF, Cefalu CA, Hudak SJ. High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs via transscrotal approach. J Sex Med. 2013;10:603–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Vitarelli A, Divenuto L, Fortunato F, Falco A, Pagliarulo V, Antonini G, et al. Long term patient satisfaction and quality of life with AMS700CX inflatable penile prosthesis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2013;85:133–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ohl DA, Brock G, Ralph D, Bogache W, Jones L, Munarriz R, et al. Prospective evaluation of patient satisfaction, and surgeon and patient trainer assessment of the coloplast titan one touch release three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2012;9:2467–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Henry GD, Brinkman MJ, Mead SF, Delk JR, Cleves MA, Jennermann C, et al. A survey of patients with inflatable penile prostheses: assessment of timing and frequency of intercourse and analysis of implant durability. J Sex Med. 2012;9:1715–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Levine LA, Benson J, Hoover C. Inflatable penile prosthesis placement in men with peyronie’s disease and drug-resistant erectile dysfunction: a single-center study. J Sex Med. 2010;7:3775–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Paranhos M, Andrade E, Antunes AA, Barbieri ALN, Claro JA, Srougi M. Penile prosthesis implantation in an academic institution in Latin America. Int Braz J Urol. 2010;36:591–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Montague DK, Angermeier KW. Corporeal excavation: new technique for penile prosthesis implantation in men with severe corporeal fibrosis. Urology. 2006;67:1072–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int. 2006;97:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zermann DH, Kutzenberger J, Sauerwein D, Schubert J, Loeffler U. Penile prosthetic surgery in neurologically impaired patients: long-term followup. J Urol. 2006;175:1041–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Abouassaly R, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Risk of infection with an antibiotic coated penile prosthesis at device replacement for mechanical failure. J Urol. 2006;176:2471–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jensen JB, Larsen EH, Kirkeby HJ, Jensen KME. Clinical experience with the mentor alpha-1 inflatable penile prosthesis: report on 65 patients. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2005;39:69–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Milbank AJ, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM, Worley SE. Mechanical failure of the American medical systems ultrex inflatable penile prosthesis: Before and after 1993 structural modification. J Urol. 2002;167:2502–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hollenbeck BK, Miller DC, Ohl DA. The utility of lockout valve reservoirs in preventing autoinflation in penile prostheses. Int Urol Nephrol. 2002;34:379–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Soliman HE, Milad MF, Ayyat FM, Zein TA, Hussein ESA. Penile implants in the treatment of organic impotence. Saudi Med J. 2001;22:30–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Chung E, Solomon M, Deyoung L, Brock GB. Comparison between AMS 700TM CX and ColoplastTM titan inflatable penile prosthesis for peyronie’s disease treatment and remodeling: clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med. 2013;10:2855–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ralla B, Goranova I, Börnstein N, Friedersdorff F, Maxeiner A, Magheli A, et al. Complications, functional and quality of life outcomes following primary and secondary implantation of penile prosthesis at a tertiary referral center. Int J Impot Res. 2018;30:49–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sansalone S, Garaffa G, Djinovic R, Antonini G, Vespasiani G, Ieria FP, et al. Simultaneous total corporal reconstruction and implantation of a penile prosthesis in patients with erectile dysfunction and severe fibrosis of the corpora cavernosa. J Sex Med. 2012;9:1937–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Johnson BE, Langford BT, VanDyke ME, Matz EL, Cook GS, Franzen BP, et al. Long-term experience with AMS-700 CXR inflatable penile prosthesis in high-risk patients with corporal fibrosis. Int J Impot Res. 2024;37:66–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Park SH, Wilson SK, Wen L. Subcoronal incision for inflatable penile prosthesis does not risk glans necrosis. J Urol. 2023;210:678–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lucas JW, Gross MS, Barlotta RM, Sudhakar A, Hoover CRV, Wilson SK, et al. Optimal modeling: an updated method for safely and effectively eliminating curvature during penile prosthesis implantation. Urology. 2020;146:133–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hatzichristodoulou G. The PICS technique: a novel approach for residual curvature correction during penile prosthesis implantation in patients with severe Peyronie’s disease using the collagen fleece TachoSil. J Sex Med. 2018;15:416–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Clavell-Hernández J, Wang R. Penile size restoration with nondegloving approach for Peyronie’s disease: initial experience. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1506–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gross MS, Stember DS, Garber BB, Perito PE. A retrospective analysis of risk factors for IPP reservoir entry into the peritoneum after abdominal wall placement. Int J Impot Res. 2017;29:215–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Garber BB, Khurgin JL, Stember DS, Perito PE. Pseudo-malfunction of the coloplast titan inflatable penile prosthesis one-touch release pump. Urology. 2014;84:857–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Borges F, Hakim L, Kline C. Surgical technique to maintain penile length after insertion of an inflatable penile prosthesis via infrapubic approach. J Sex Med. 2006;3:550–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bearelly P, D’Amico M, Pan S, Thirumavalavan N, Gross MS, Maria P, et al. Intraoperative use of vancomycin paste during penile prosthesis placement: initial outcomes. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34:81–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Rahman NU, Carrion RE, Bochinski D, Lue TF. Combined penile plication surgery and insertion of penile prosthesis for severe penile curvature and erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 2004;171:2346–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wilson SK, Henry GD, Delk JR, Cleves MA. The mentor alpha 1 penile prosthesis with reservoir lock-out valve: effective prevention of auto-inflation with improved capability for ectopic reservoir placement. J Urol. 2002;168:1475–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Loloi J, Matloubieh J, Riley C, Babar M, Melendez D, Watts K, et al. Hypertension and low cholesterol as risk factors for infection after primary inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. J Mens Health. 2022;18:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Falcone M, Pucci L, Garaffa G, Cocci A, Gillo A, Capece M, et al. An outcomes analysis of penile prosthesis implantation following radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion: a multicentric retrospective cohort study. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:126–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kim KS, Bae WJ, Kim SW, Lee MY. Experience with AMS 700 LGX penile prostheses for preserving penile length in Korea. BMC Urol. 2019;19:6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Grande P, Antonini G, Cristini C, De Berardinis E, Gatto A, Di Lascio G, et al. Penoscrotal versus minimally invasive infrapubic approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a single-center matched-pair analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36:1167–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Roth J, Monn M, Shelton T, Mellon M. A novel technique for direct visualization of reservoir placement for penoscrotal inflatable penile prostheses using a single incision. Indian J Urol. 2018;34:283–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Ji YS, Ko YH, Song PH, Moon KH. Long-term survival and patient satisfaction with inflatable penile prosthesis for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Korean J Urol. 2015;56:461–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Bozkurt IH, Arslan B, Kozacioglu Z, Yonguc T, Degirmenci T, Gunlusoy B, et al. Does the etiology affect the outcome and satisfaction rates of penile prosthesis implantation surgery? Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2014;30:570–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Djordjevic ML, Kojovic V. Penile prosthesis implantation and tunica albuginea incision without grafting in the treatment of Peyronie’s disease with erectile dysfunction. Asian J Androl. 2013;15:391–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Chung E, Van CT, Wilson I, Cartmill RA. Penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment for male erectile dysfunction: clinical outcomes and lessons learnt after 955 procedures. World J Urol. 2013;31:591–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Thomas AZ, Carrol R, Manecksha RP, Thornhill JA, Grainger R, McDermott TED. Extended long term functional outcome of inflatable penile prosthesis in a single institution. Ir Med J. 2011;104:53–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Kim DS, Yang KM, Chung HJ, Choi HM, Choi YD, Choi HK. AMS 700CX/CXM inflatable penile prosthesis has high mechanical reliability at long-term follow-up. J Sex Med. 2010;7:2602–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Moncada I, Martínez-Salamanca JI, Jara J, Cabello R, Moralejo M, Hernández C. Inflatable penile prosthesis implantation without corporeal dilation: a cavernous tissue sparing technique. J Urol. 2010;183:1123–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Hartman RJ, Helfand BT, McVary KT. Outcomes of lateral retroperitoneal reservoir placement of three-piece penile prosthesis in patients following radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res. 2010;22:279–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Dhar NB, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Long-term mechanical reliability of AMS 700CXTM/CXM inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2006;176:2599–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Deuk Choi Y, Jin Choi Y, Hwan Kim J, Ki Choi H. Mechanical reliability of the AMS 700CXM inflatable penile prosthesis for the treatment of male erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 2001;165:822–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Carson CC. Penile prosthesis implantation in the treatment of Peyronie’s disease and erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2000;12:S122–S126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Khoei A, Racik N, Bansal U, Flores F, Khera M. The low submuscular reservoir placement with transfascial fixation for inflatable penile prostheses. J Sex Med. 2022;19:1309–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Pazir Y, Yanaral F, Caglar U, Ortac M, Sarilar O, Ozgor F. Evaluation of satisfaction and outcomes of patients who underwent two-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Cureus. 2022;14:26097.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Cocera R, Torremade J, Suarez JF, Fernandez-Concha J, Vigues F. Comparative analysis of penile implants in patients with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction versus postradical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:606–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Rolle L, Falcone M, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Sedigh O, Ralph DJ, et al. A prospective multicentric international study on the surgical outcomes and patients’ satisfaction rates of the “sliding” technique for end-stage Peyronie’s disease with severe shortening of the penis and erectile dysfunction. BJU Int. 2016;117:814–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Gentile G, Franceschelli A, Massenio P, Tuccio A, Cocci A, Divenuto L, et al. Patient’s satisfaction after 2-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: An Italian multicentric study. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016;88:1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Menard J, Tremeaux JC, Faix A, Pierrevelcin J, Staerman F. Erectile function and sexual satisfaction before and after penile prosthesis implantation in radical prostatectomy patients: a comparison with patients with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2011;8:3479–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Diblasio CJ, Kurta JM, Botta S, Malcolm JB, Wan JY, Derweesh IH, et al. Peyronie’s disease compromises the durability and component-malfunction rates in patients implanted with an inflatable penile prosthesis. BJU Int. 2010;106:691–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Mulcahy JJ, Cleves M, Salem EA. Upsizing of inflatable penile implant cylinders in patients with corporal fibrosis. J Sex Med. 2006;3:736–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Manning M, Martínez FJ, Alken P, Jünemann KP. Spontaneous tumescence after implantation of three-piece hydraulic penile prostheses: a short-term experience. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15:152–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR. Long-term followup of treatment for Peyronie’s disease: modeling the penis over an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 2001;165:825–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Chiang HS, Wu CC, Wen TC. 10 Years of experience with penile prosthesis implantation in Taiwanese patients. J Urol. 2000;163:476–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Hawks-Ladds N, Babar M, Labagnara K, Loloi J, Patel RD, Aalami Harandi A, et al. Risk factors for reoperation of inflatable penile prosthesis among an ethnically diverse urban population in a high-volume center. Int J Impot Res. 2024;37:37–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Falcone M, Capogrosso P, Cirigliano L, Geretto P, Preto M, Timpano M, et al. The outcomes of penile prosthesis in neurologic patients: a multicentric retrospective series. Ther Adv Urol. 2023;15:17562872231194921.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Preto M, Falcone M, Plamadeala N, Schifano N, Bettocchi C, Colombo F, et al. Risk of unfavorable outcomes after penile prosthesis implantation – results from a national registry (INSIST-ED). Int J Impot Res. 2023;36:842–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Nelson CP, Bloom DA, Kinast R, Wei JT, Park JM. Patient-reported sexual function after oral mucosa graft urethroplasty for hypospadias. Urology. 2005;66:1086–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Egydio PH, Kuehhas FE. Distal penile shaft reconstruction and reinforcement: the “Double-Windsocks” technique. J Sex Med. 2013;10:2571–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Dave CN, Khalaf A, Patel HD, Kohn TP, Burnett AL. Neurogenic bladder is an independent risk factor for complications associated with inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:520–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Pederzoli F, Chappidi MR, Collica S, Kates M, Joice GA, Sopko NA, et al. Analysis of hospital readmissions after prosthetic urologic surgery in the United States: nationally representative estimates of causes, costs, and predictive factors. J Sex Med. 2017;14:1059–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Papagiannopoulos D, Yura E, Levine L. Examining postoperative outcomes after employing a surgical algorithm for management of Peyronie’s disease: a single-institution retrospective review. J Sex Med. 2015;12:1474–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Segal RL, Cabrini MR, Bivalacqua TJ, Burnett AL. Penile straightening maneuvers employed during penile prosthesis surgery: technical options and outcomes. Int J Impot Res. 2014;26:182–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Lindeborg L, Fode M, Fahrenkrug L, Sonksen J. Satisfaction and complications with the Titan® one-touch release penile implant. Scand J Urol. 2014;48:105–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Akin Y, Sahiner IF, Usta MF. The impact of diabetes mellitus on penile length in men undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Turk J Urol. 2014;39:161–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Mulcahy JJ, Carson CC. Long-term infection rates in diabetic patients implanted with antibiotic-impregnated versus nonimpregnated inflatable penile prostheses: 7-year outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;60:167–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. 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 

  107. 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 

  108. Shumaker L, Zulia N, Kennedy E, Beilan J, Ortiz N, Baumgarten A. Delayed closed-suction drain removal following inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institutional experience. J Sex Med. 2023;20:1440–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Micallef D, Wightman S, Naqi M, Modgil V, Pearce I. Is the infrapubic approach a safe option for patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus and obesity undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis surgery? J Clin Urol. 2022;18:61–8.

  110. Szell NM, McIntosh GV, Dimatteo AD, Campbell T, Shaw MK. Retropubic dilation with a foley catheter balloon: a novel technique for penile prosthesis reservoir placement. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2016;116:594–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Bozkurt YE, Akdeniz CB, Gümüş BH. Long-term results of three-part penile prosthesis implantation with ectopic reservoir placement in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: is supramuscular tubulation a reliable method? Basic Clin Androl. 2024;34:8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. La Croce G, Schifano N, Pescatori E, Caraceni E, Colombo F, Bettocchi C, et al. Which patient may benefit the most from penile prosthesis implantation? Andrology. 2022;10:1567–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Palmisano F, Boeri L, Ievoli R, Sánchez-Curbelo J, Spinelli M, Gregori A, et al. Ten-year experience with penile prosthetic surgery for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: outcomes of a tertiary referral center and predictors of early prosthetic infection. Asian J Androl. 2022;24:32–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Chen T, Li S, Eisenberg ML. The association between hemoglobin A1c levels and inflatable penile prosthesis infection: analysis of US insurance claims data. J Sex Med. 2021;18:1104–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  115. Kisa E, Keskin MZ, Yucel C, Ucar M, Yalbuzdag O, Ilbey YO. Comparison of penile prosthesis types’ complications: a retrospective analysis of single center. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020;92. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.4.386.

  116. Çayan S, Aşcı R, Efesoy O, Bolat MS, Akbay E, Yaman Ö. Comparison of long-term results and couples’ satisfaction with penile implant types and brands: lessons learned from 883 patients with erectile dysfunction who underwent penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med. 2019;16:1092–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Canguven O, Talib R, El Ansari W, Khalafalla K, Al Ansari A. Is Hba1c level of diabetic patients associated with penile prosthesis implantation infections? Aging Male. 2019;22:28–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Golan R, Patel NA, Sun T, Barbieri CE, Sedrakyan A, Kashanian JA. Impact of pelvic radiation therapy on inflatable penile prosthesis reoperation rates. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1653–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Sevinc C, Ozkaptan O, Balaban M, Yucetas U, Karadeniz T. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation: are malleable prostheses an appropriate treatment option in patients with erectile dysfunction caused by prior radical surgery? Asian J Androl. 2016;18.

  120. Mohamed ER, Hammady AR, Eldahshoury MZ, Elsharkawi AM, Riad AM, Elmogazy HM, et al. Surgical outcomes and complications of Tube® (Promedon) malleable penile prostheses in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction. Arab J Urol. 2016;14:305–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Pozza D, Pozza M, Musy M, Pozza C. 500 penile prostheses implanted by a surgeon in Italy in the last 30 years. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2015;87:216–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Zabar KJ, Ahmadi A, Jalal AA. Penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Bahrain Med Bull. 2009;31.

  123. Fathy A, Shamloul R, Abdelrahim A, Zeidan A, El-Dakhly R, Ghanem H. Experience with Tube® (Promedon) malleable penile implant. Urol Int. 2007;79:244–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Wilson SK, Wen L, Carrion R, Eid F, Lentz A, Shah B, et al. Safety outcomes of the first Rigi10TM malleable penile prostheses implanted worldwide. Int J Impot Res. 2023;36:833–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Salman B, Elsherif E, Elgharabawy M, Badawy A. Early versus delayed penile prosthesis insertion for refractory ischemic priapism. Arab J Urol. 2023;21:76–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Habous M, Omar M, Farag M, Abdelwahab O, Laban O, Binsaleh S, et al. Malleable penile implant rod diameter predicts complications and patient satisfaction. Sex Med. 2022;10:100486–100486.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Kim YD, Yang SO, Lee JK, Jung TY, Shim HB. Usefulness of a malleable penile prosthesis in patients with a spinal cord injury. Int J Urol. 2008;15:919–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Topuz B, Ebiloğlu T, Zor M, Kaya E, Sarıkaya S, Emrah Coğuplugil A, et al. Penile prosthesis implantation: a single center 25 years of experience. Prog Urol. 2021;31:663–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Ferguson KH, Cespedes RD. Prospective long-term results and quality-of-life assessment after Dura-II penile prosthesis placement. Urology. 2003;61:437–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Elhawy MM, Fawzy AM. Outcomes of low-flow priapism and role of integrated penile prosthesis management. Afr J Urol. 2021;27:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Egydio PH, Kuehhas FE. Penile lengthening and widening without grafting according to a modified “sliding” technique. BJU Int. 2015;116:965–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Pathak AS, Chang JH, Parekh AR, Aboseif SR. Use of rectus fascia graft for corporeal reconstruction during placement of penile implant. Urology. 2005;65:1198–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Antonini G, De Berardinis E, Del Giudice F, Busetto GM, Lauretti S, Fragas R, et al. Inflatable penile prosthesis placement, scratch technique and postoperative vacuum therapy as a combined approach to definitive treatment of Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 2018;200:642–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Chung PH, Scott JF, Morey AF. High patient satisfaction of inflatable penile prosthesis insertion with synchronous penile plication for erectile dysfunction and Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2014;11:1593–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Kadioglu A, Sanli O, Akman T, Cakan M, Erol B, Mamadov F. Surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease: a single center experience with 145 patients. Eur Urol. 2008;53:432–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Chaudhary M, Sheikh N, Asterling S, Ahmad I, Greene D. Peyronie’s disease with erectile dysfunction: penile modeling over inflatable penile prostheses. Urology. 2005;65:760–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Sansalone S, Garaffa G, Djinovic R, Egydio P, Vespasiani G, Miano R, et al. Simultaneous penile lengthening and penile prosthesis implantation in patients with peyronie’s disease, refractory erectile dysfunction, and severe penile shortening. J Sex Med. 2012;9:316–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Levine LA, Dimitriou RJ. A surgical algorithm for penile prosthesis placement in men with erectile failure and Peyronie’s disease. Int J Impot Res. 2000;12:147–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Egydio PH, Kuehhas FE, Sansalone S. Penile length and girth restoration in severe Peyronie’s disease using circular and longitudinal grafting. BJU Int. 2013;111:213–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Moncada I, Krishnappa P, Zaccaro C, Fraile A, Romero-Otero J, Martinez-Salamanca JI, et al. Penile prosthesis implantation is safe and effective in Peyronie’s disease patients with and without erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2024;37:61–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Spinozzi L, Droghetti M, Palmisano F, Piazza P, Fontanella L, Gentile G, et al. Use of soft penile prosthesis in grafting surgery for Peyronie’s disease and mild erectile dysfunction: still an option? Arch Esp Urol. 2024;77:270–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Tausch TJ, Chung PH, Siegel JA, Gliga L, Klein AK, Morey AF. Intraoperative decision-making for precise penile straightening during inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Urology. 2015;86:1048–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Krishnappa P, Tripathi A, Shah R. Surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction with the low-cost, semi-rigid shah penile prosthesis: a boon to the developing countries. Sex Med. 2021;9:100399.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  145. Akdemir F, Okulu E, Kaylgil. Long-term outcomes of AMS Spectra® penile prosthesis implantation and satisfaction rates. Int J Impot Res. 2017;29:184–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Katz BF, Gaunay GS, Barazani Y, Nelson CJ, Moreira DM, Dinlenc CZ, et al. Use of a preoperative checklist reduces risk of penile prosthesis infection. J Urol. 2014;192:130–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Serefoglu EC, Mandava SH, Gokce A, Chouhan JD, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJG. 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 

  148. Henry GD, Donatucci CF, Conners W, Greenfield JM, Carson CC, Wilson SK, et al. An outcomes analysis of over 200 revision surgeries for penile prosthesis implantation: a multicenter study. J Sex Med. 2012;9:309–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Haobus M, Almannie R, Aziz M, Farag M, Ralph D, Mulhall J, et al. Correlation of fasting blood sugar at the time of penile prosthesis surgery with the level of glycated hemoglobin and the outcome of surgery. Afr J Urol. 2021;27:90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Hsu GL, Chen HS, Huang SJ. Does tunica anatomy matter in penile implant? Transl Androl Urol. 2015;4:406–12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Habous M, Tealab A, Farag M, Soliman T, Williamson B, Mahmoud S, et al. Malleable penile implant is an effective therapeutic option in men with Peyronie’s disease and erectile dysfunction. Sex Med. 2018;6:24–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. Roehrborn CG, Siami P, Barkin J, Damião R, Major-Walker K, Nandy I, et al. The effects of combination therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin on clinical outcomes in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from the combAT study. Eur Urol. 2010;57:123–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Sexual Medicine. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology; 2025.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Raheem OA, Hsieh TC. Penile prosthetic surgery for the management of Peyronie’s disease. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:S815–S821.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Patel J, Zakkar B, Polchert M, Tannenbaum J, Dick B, Raheem O. Recent technological development of penile prosthesis: a literature review. Transl Androl Urol. 2024;13:165–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  158. Yavuz U, Ciftci S, Ustuner M, Yilmaz H, Culha M. Surgical treatment of erectile dysfunction and Peyronie’s disease using malleable prosthesis. Urol J. 2015;12:2428–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Marta Pezzoli, for her contribution to this Systematic Review. This Systematic Review was performed under the auspices of the: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office Board; European Association of Urology Sexual & Reproductive Health Guidelines Panel.

Funding

European Association of Urology.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Andrea Cocci, Paolo Capogrosso, Suks Minhas, Andrea Salonia.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Andrea Cocci

  2. Department of Urology and Andrology, Ospedale di Circolo and Macchi Foundation, Varese, Italy

    Paolo Capogrosso

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

    Suks Minhas & Tharu Tharakan

  4. Department of Urology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy

    Carlo Bettocchi

  5. Department of Urology, Foundation IRCCS Ca’ Granda - Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Luca Boeri

  6. CPUP: Center for Psychology of Porto University, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Porto University, Porto, Portugal

    Joana Carvalho

  7. Department of Urology, Taksim Training & Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Nusret Can Cilesiz

  8. Endocrinology Unit, Medical Department, Maggiore-Bellaria Hospital, Bologna, Italy

    Giovanni Corona

  9. Academic Urology Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Konstantinos Dimitropoulos

  10. School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey

    Murat Gül

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

    Georgios Hatzichristodoulou

  12. Centre for Diabetes and Endocrinology, Barnsley Hospital NHS Trust, Barnsley, UK

    Thomas Hugh Jones

  13. Department of Urology, İstanbul University İstanbul School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey

    Ates Kadioglu

  14. Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Puerta del Hierro Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain

    Juan Ignatio Martínez Salamanca

  15. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Uros Milenkovic

  16. Manchester Andrology Centre, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK

    Vaibhav Modgil

  17. Urology Section, Department of Surgery, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Giorgio Ivan Russo

  18. Department of Urology, Biruni University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ege Can Serefoglu

  19. Department of Medicine and Surgery, Scuola Medica Salernitana, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy

    Paolo Verze

  20. Urology Clinic, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    Marco Falcone

  21. Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

    Andrea Salonia

Authors
  1. Andrea Cocci
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paolo Capogrosso
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suks Minhas
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carlo Bettocchi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luca Boeri
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joana Carvalho
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nusret Can Cilesiz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giovanni Corona
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Konstantinos Dimitropoulos
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Murat Gül
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Georgios Hatzichristodoulou
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Thomas Hugh Jones
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ates Kadioglu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Juan Ignatio Martínez Salamanca
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Uros Milenkovic
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Vaibhav Modgil
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Giorgio Ivan Russo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Ege Can Serefoglu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Tharu Tharakan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Paolo Verze
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Marco Falcone
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Andrea Salonia
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

EAU Working Group on Male Sexual and Reproductive Health

  • Andrea Cocci
  • , Paolo Capogrosso
  • , Suks Minhas
  • , Carlo Bettocchi
  • , Luca Boeri
  • , Joana Carvalho
  • , Nusret Can Cilesiz
  • , Giovanni Corona
  • , Konstantinos Dimitropoulos
  • , Murat Gül
  • , Georgios Hatzichristodoulou
  • , Thomas Hugh Jones
  • , Ates Kadioglu
  • , Juan Ignatio Martínez Salamanca
  • , Uros Milenkovic
  • , Vaibhav Modgil
  • , Giorgio Ivan Russo
  • , Ege Can Serefoglu
  • , Tharu Tharakan
  • , Paolo Verze
  • , Marco Falcone
  •  & Andrea Salonia

Contributions

AC, PC, SM, AS were responsible for designing the review protocol and writing the protocol; AC, PC, SM, AS was responsible for writing the report; AC, PC, SM, CB, LB, JC, AK, JIMS, VM, GIV, ECS were responsible for conducting the search, screening potentially eligible studies, extracting and analysing data, interpreting results. CB, LB, JC, AK, NCC, GH, THJ, UM, JIMS, VM, GIV, ECS, TT, PV contributed to designing the review and provided feedback on the report.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Cocci.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Ege Can Serefoglu is Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Impotence Research. Luca Boeri, Marco Falcone, and Murat Gul are Associate Editors of International Journal of Impotence Research.

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

Cocci, A., Capogrosso, P., Minhas, S. et al. Penile prosthesis implantation: a systematic review of intraoperative and postoperative complications. Int J Impot Res (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01108-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01108-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links