Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 4/2021

01-04-2021 | Erectile Dysfunction | Men's Health (R Carrion, Section Editor)

State of the Reservoir: Current Concepts of Penile Implant Reservoir Placement and Potential Complications

Authors: Maia Van Dyke, Adam S. Baumgarten, Nicolas Ortiz, Steven J. Hudak, Allen F. Morey

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 4/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To discuss mechanical and surgical innovations in inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery and their implications on reservoir placement and patient outcomes.

Recent Findings

The past decade has seen a new emphasis on optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications associated with IPP reservoirs. Innovations in device design have accordingly yielded safer, more durable IPP outcomes over the past four decades. Modifications in surgical approach for reservoir placement abound for both traditional space of Retzius and ectopic reservoir placement techniques.

Summary

Surgical and medical history, patient anatomy, and patient preference should all be considered when choosing approach for IPP reservoir placement. Prosthetic urologists should be proficient in multiple approaches to provide the best care to their patients.
Literature
1.
Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Management of erectile impotence use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology. 1973;2(1):80–2.CrossRef
2.
Pastuszak AW, Lentz AC, Farooq A, Jones L, Bella AJ. Technological improvements in three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis design over the past 40 years. J Sex Med. 2015;12(S7):415–21.CrossRef
3.
Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2,384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007;4(4i):1074–9.CrossRef
4.
Wilson SK, Warman GE, Lange JL. Eleven years of experience with the inflatable penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1988;139(5):951–2.CrossRef
5.
Wilson S, Cleves MA, Delk I. Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced mentor* Alpha I penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1999;162(3):715–8.CrossRef
6.
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(4):1475–8.CrossRef
7.
Pasticier G, Rietbergen JB, Guillonneau B, Fromont G, Menon M, Vallancien G. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol. 2001;40(1):70–4.CrossRef
8.
Skarecky DW. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after the first decade: surgical evolution or new paradigm. ISRN Urol. 2013;2013:1–22.CrossRef
9.
Madiraju SK, Hakky TS, Perito PE, Wallen JJ. Placement of inflatable penile implants in patients with prior radical pelvic surgery: a literature review. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7(1):189–97.CrossRef
10.
• Hernández JC, Trost L, Köhler T, et al. Emerging complications following alternative reservoir placement during inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a 5-year multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2019;201(3):581–6 This is a multi-institutional study evaluating and comparing complications following IPP reservoir placement in the SOR versus various alternative reservoir locations.CrossRef
11.
Perito P, Wilson S. The history of nontraditional or ectopic placement of reservoirs in prosthetic urology. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(2):190–3.CrossRef
12.
Food U, Administration D. FDA PMA supplemental approval. Approval for changes in the labeling of the Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis surgical protocol to incorporate ectopic placement. 2015.
13.
Gupta NK, Ring J, Trost L, Wilson SK, Köhler TS. The penoscrotal surgical approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(4):628–38.CrossRef
14.
Levine LA, Hoeh MP. Review of penile prosthetic reservoir: complications and presentation of a modified reservoir placement technique. J Sex Med. 2012;9(11):2759–69.CrossRef
15.
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(7):1167–74.CrossRef
16.
Deho’ F, Henry GD, Marone EM, et al. Severe vascular complication after implantation of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. J Sex Med. 2008;5(12):2956–9.CrossRef
17.
Hudak SJ, Mora RV. Unilateral ureteral obstruction due to a migrated inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir. J Urol. 2008;180:336.CrossRef
18.
Furlow WL, Goldwasser B. Salvage of the eroded inflatable penile prosthesis: a new concept. J Urol. 1987;138(2):312–4.CrossRef
19.
Brison D, Ilbeigi P, Sadeghi-Nejad H. Reservoir repositioning and successful thrombectomy for deep venous thrombosis secondary to compression of pelvic veins by an inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir. J Sex Med. 2007;4(4):1185–7.CrossRef
20.
Henry G, Hsaio W, Karpman E, Bella AT, Carrion R, Jones L, et al. A guide for inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir placement: pertinent anatomical measurements of the retropubic space. J Sex Med. 2014;11(1):273–8.CrossRef
21.
• Capoccia EM, Phelps JN, Levine LA. Modified inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir placement into space of Retzius: comparing outcomes in men with or without prior pelvic surgery. J Sex Med. 2017;14(7):968–73 This large volume, single-surgeon retrospective review evaluates the safety and efficacy of a modified SOR reservoir placement technique with Jorgenson scissors in patients with and without history of pelvic surgery.CrossRef
22.
Riemenschneider HW. Epigastric placement of reservoir for inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1981;17(1):79–81.CrossRef
23.
Hartman R, Helfand B, McVary K. Outcomes of lateral retroperitoneal reservoir placement of three-piece penile prosthesis in patients following radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res. 2010;22(4):279–83.CrossRef
24.
Perito PE, Wilson SK. Surgical techniques: traditional (retroperitoneal) and abdominal wall (ectopic) reservoir placement. J Sex Med. 2011;8(3):656–9.CrossRef
25.
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(2):605–12.CrossRef
26.
Morey AF, Cefalu CA, Hudak SJ. High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs via transscrotal approach. J Sex Med. 2013;10(2):603–10.CrossRef
27.
Chung PH, Morey AF, Tausch TJ, Simhan J, Scott JF. High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs: 2-year experience and patient-reported outcomes. Urology. 2014;84(6):1535–40.CrossRef
28.
•• Baumgarten AS, Kavoussi M, VanDyke ME, et al. Avoiding deep pelvic complications Using “five-step” technique for high submuscular placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs. BJU Int. 2020;145(1):298. This recent study proposes a "Five-Step" technique to improve the reliability of reservoir placement into the HSM space.
29.
•• Ziegelmann MJ, Viers BR, Lomas DJ, Westerman ME, Trost LW. Ectopic penile prosthesis reservoir placement: an anatomic cadaver model of the high submuscular technique. J Sex Med. 2016;13(9):1425–31 This cadaveric study challenges whether IPP reservoirs ostensibly placed into the HSM space are ultimately found in that location.CrossRef
30.
Baumgarten AS, Hudak SJ, Morey AF. Erectile dysfunction after urethroplasty: is the risk overstated? J Sex Med. 2020;17(2):171–3.CrossRef
31.
Pagliara T, Viers B, Scott J, Morey A. Extended experience with high submuscular placement of urological prosthetic balloons and reservoirs: refined technique for optimal outcomes. Urol Pract. 2018;5(4):293–8.CrossRef
32.
Kava BR, Lopatagui DM, Levine A, Ramasamy R. Trans-fascial placement of a high, sub muscular reservoir in patients following radical cystectomy: safety, efficacy, and predictability of final reservoir location verified with abdominal imaging. J Sex Med. 2019;16(2):338–45.CrossRef
33.
Garber BB, Gross MS, Stember D. Sub-external oblique placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs—initial experience. Int J Impot Res. 2019;31(6):400–3.CrossRef
34.
Garber BB, Bickell M. Subcutaneous placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs. Urology. 2016;88:93–6.CrossRef
35.
Karpman E, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Henry G, Khera M, Morey AF. Current opinions on alternative reservoir placement for inflatable penile prosthesis among members of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America. J Sex Med. 2013;10(8):2115–20.CrossRef
36.
•• Karpman E, Brant WO, Kansas B, 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(1):239–44 This large-volume, multi-institutional study presents the preliminiary outcomes of the PROPPER Study which prospectively evaluates the safety and efficacy of SOR versus submuscular reservoir placement.CrossRef
37.
• Osmonov D, Chomicz A, Tropmann-Frick M, Arndt K, Jünemann K. High-submuscular vs. space of Retzius reservoir placement during implantation of inflatable penile implants. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32(1):18–23 This is the largest European study to date to evaluate HSM vs SOR reservoir placement; the authors concluded that HSM placement was safe, efficient, and resulted in high levels of patient satisfaction.CrossRef
38.
Tausch TJ, Morey AF, Zhao LC, Knoll P, Simhan J, Scott JF, et al. High submuscular versus space of Retzius placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs: results of a surgeon survey. Can J Urol. 2014;21(5):7465–9.PubMed
39.
Metadata
Title
State of the Reservoir: Current Concepts of Penile Implant Reservoir Placement and Potential Complications
Authors
Maia Van Dyke
Adam S. Baumgarten
Nicolas Ortiz
Steven J. Hudak
Allen F. Morey
Publication date
01-04-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-021-01041-1

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

Current Urology Reports 4/2021 Go to the issue

Surgery (M Desai, Section Editor)

Techniques and Outcomes of MRI-TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy

Surgery (M Desai, Section Editor)

Single Port Robotic Surgery in Urology

Kidney Diseases (G Ciancio, Section Editor)

Primary Renal Synovial Sarcoma and Clinical and Pathological Findings: a Systematic Review

Men's Health (R Carrion, Section Editor)

Erectile and Ejaculatory Dysfunction After Urethroplasty

Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (K McVary, Section Editor)

Marijuana, Alcohol, and ED: Correlations with LUTS/BPH

Surgery (M Desai, Section Editor)

Innovations in Urologic Surgical Training