Comparison of Infrapubic vs Penoscrotal Approaches for 3-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement: Do We Have a Winner?

Franco Palmisano, Luca Boeri, Cristiano Cristini, Gabriele Antonini, Matteo Giulio Spinelli, Giorgio Franco, Fabrizio Longo, Franco Gadda, Fulvio Colombo, Emanuele Montanari

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is the gold standard treatment for male erectile dysfunction when other less invasive approaches are contra-indicated or unacceptable for the patient. There are currently 2 surgical approaches for IPP implantation: the penoscrotal (PS) and the infrapubic (IP) incision. Aim: To assess the most recent evidence on the impact of surgical approach for 3-piece IPP implantation in patients with erectile dysfunction. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using the MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane Libraries databases in November 2017 to identify all studies investigating 3-piece IPP with a specified surgical access. Outcomes: The following key words were used in combination: “infrapubic,” “transcrotal,” “penoscrotal,” “peno-scrotal,” and “penile prosthesis.” Additional references were obtained from the reference lists of full-text manuscripts. We used a narrative synthesis for the analyses of the studies. Results: 22 Studies reporting data on 3-piece IPP implantation with a specified surgical approach were found in the literature. While IPPs are most commonly positioned through a PS incision, the IP approach is a faster procedure. No cases of glans hypoesthesia after IPP placement with an IP approach were reported, and the overall peri-prosthetic infection rate was 3.3% or less. Patient satisfaction rates were higher than 80% in both groups. Conclusions: Both the IP and PS approaches are viable and effective strategies for a 3-piece IPP placement, and result in high satisfaction rates. To date there is no evidence that an incision strategy may reduce infection rates. Penile sensory loss following an IP approach remains a virtual risk. It is recommended that the surgeon executing the implant have knowledge of both accesses and be capable of tailoring the incision strategy for complex cases. The chosen method should be based on the patient's specific anatomy, surgical history, and surgeon experience. Palmisano F, Boeri L, Cristini C, et al. Comparison of Infrapubic vs Penoscrotal Approaches for 3-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement: Do We Have a Winner? Sex Med Rev 2018;XX:XXX–XXX.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)631-639
JournalSexual Medicine Reviews
Volume6
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Keywords

  • Erectile Dysfunction
  • Impotence
  • Infrapubic
  • Penile Implant
  • Penile Prosthesis
  • Penoscrotal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Dermatology
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • Urology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of Infrapubic vs Penoscrotal Approaches for 3-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement: Do We Have a Winner?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this