Penile Prosthesis Complications: Planning, Prevention, and Decision Making
- 1 April 2019
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Sexual Medicine Reviews
- Vol. 7 (2) , 349-359
Abstract
Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is an established treatment option for men with erectile dysfunction (ED) refractory to medical therapy. Standardization of surgical technique and improvements in device construction have reduced all-cause complication rates to less than 5% in recent reports. Nonetheless, complications do exist, and can strongly impact morbidity and the quality of life of patients. Prosthetic urologists must be aware of the constellation of complications that can arise during or after IPP placement. To provide a comprehensive review of penile prosthesis complications and discuss preventative strategies, as well as proper preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative decision making. A review of the available literature from 1973 to 2018 was performed using PubMed with regard to IPP complications. We reviewed publications that outlined preoperative planning strategies and the following IPP complications: hematoma, floppy glans, corporal fibrosis, corporal perforation and crossover, urethral injury, infection, impending erosion, and glandular ischemia. Careful patient and device selection, setting realistic expectations of postsurgical outcomes, and adherence to a perioperative checklist is essential in the preoperative period. Intraoperatively, anticipate corporal fibrosis situations and always dilate laterally during corporal passage to reduce the risk of crossover and urethral injury. Limit perioperative antiplatelet therapy, apply compressive dressing, use a closed suction drain if indicated, and leave the device partially inflated postoperatively to reduce risk of hematoma. After surgery, monitor patients for potential complications that may warrant device explantation or salvage: IPP infection, glans ischemia, and impending erosion. By using evidence and expert opinion-based decision-making strategies in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative period of IPP placement, surgeons can reduce the risk of complications and dissatisfaction, even in ED patients with multiple comorbid conditions. Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, et al. Penile Prosthesis Complications: Planning, Prevention, and Decision Making. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:349-359.Keywords
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Outcomes of and Satisfaction with the Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in the Elderly MaleAdvances in Urology, 2012
- Long-Term Infection Rates in Diabetic Patients Implanted With Antibiotic-Impregnated Versus Nonimpregnated Inflatable Penile Prostheses: 7-Year OutcomesEuropean Urology, 2011
- Three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis: Surgical techniques and pitfallsJournal of Surgical Technique and Case Report, 2011
- Current approach to the treatment of penile implant infectionsTherapeutic Advances in Urology, 2010
- Chlorhexidine–Alcohol versus Povidone–Iodine for Surgical-Site AntisepsisNew England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Usefulness of a malleable penile prosthesis in patients with a spinal cord injuryInternational Journal of Urology, 2008
- Treating Erectile Dysfunction in Renal Transplant RecipientsDrugs, 2007
- Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 proceduresBJU International, 2005
- AMS Three–Piece Inflatable Implants for Erectile Dysfunction: A Long–Term Multi–Institutional Study in 200 Consecutive PatientsEuropean Urology, 2000
- Penile prosthesis implantation surgery: a statewide population based analysis of 2354 patientsInternational Journal Of Impotence Research, 1998