Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A Review of Prosthetic Devices and Associated Complications

Authors

  • Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad MD

    Corresponding author
    1. UMDNJ New Jersey Medical School—Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Newark, NJ, USA;
    2. Hackensack University Medical Center, Department of Urology, Hackensack, NJ, USA;
    3. VA New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange, NJ, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

Errata

This article is corrected by:

  1. Errata: ERRATA Volume 4, Issue 5, 1520, Article first published online: 22 August 2007

Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad, MD, UMDNJ New Jersey Medical School—Surgery, Division of Urology, 185 South Orange Ave, MSB G 536, Newark, NJ 07103-2714, USA. Tel: 973-972-4488; Fax: 973-395-7197; E-mail: hossein@ix.netcom.com; hossein.sadeghi-nejad@med.va.gov

ABSTRACT

Introduction.  Although more invasive than some of the other currently available therapies, penile prosthesis surgery has the advantages of high patient satisfaction rates and avoidance of systemic adverse events in the vast majority of cases.

Aim.  This article provides a review of the more widely used implants and some of the more frequently encountered complications of penile prosthesis surgery.

Methods.  A retrospective review peer reviewed publications relevant to the field of penile prosthesis surgery.

Main Outcome Measures.  Review of historical milestones and newer penile prostheses, as well as a review of prosthesis surgery complications.

Results.  Improved designs and materials have resulted in decreased incidence of mechanical failures or infectious complications while simultaneously simplifying the operation of these devices.

Conclusions.  Penile prosthesis surgery remains an excellent alternative for restoring erectile function to those in whom medical therapies such as phosphodiesterase inhibitors are contraindicated or who have failed more conservative measures. Sadeghi-Nejad H. Penile prosthesis surgery: A review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med 2007;4:296–309.

Ancillary