Abstract
Ischemic priapism is a urological emergency which may lead to irreversible erectile dysfunction. One of the accepted treatments is penile prosthesis implantation. Given the scarcity of studies directly comparing timing of penile prosthesis insertion after ischemic priapism, consensus remains elusive. We aim to compare different studies in the literature concerning advantages and disadvantages of early versus delayed inflatable penile prosthesis following ischemic priapism. We analyzed 8 articles that investigated immediate and delayed inflatable penile prosthesis placement after ischemic priapism. Early inflatable penile prosthesis placement is associated with better outcomes, including pain relief, priapism resolution, penile shortening prevention, and quicker sexual activity resumption. However, it still carries a high risk of complications like edema, infection, and distal perforations. Delayed inflatable penile prosthesis insertion poses surgical challenges due to the potential for extensive corporal fibrosis. Comparative analyses have shown elevated complication rates in patients with ischemic priapism who undergo delayed inflatable penile prosthesis insertion, as opposed to those with early insertion. In studies reporting complications rates, the total complication rate in the early group was 3.37%, significantly lower than the delayed group (37.23%). Most studies support the superiority of early inflatable penile prosthesis placement following ischemic priapism over delayed placement. Further research is, however, needed to establish a global consensus on timing of prosthesis insertion.