Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In contemporary Urology, the gold standard for treatment of erectile dysfunction refractory to medical therapy has been implantation with a penile prosthesis. The past 40 years has witnessed evolutions in technology and surgical techniques, which have led to increased patient satisfaction rates and decreased complication and infection rates. This review is an update to a prior review article that evaluates these advancements in the context of patient satisfaction and different rates of complications following surgeries. In addition, the review compares malleable and inflatable prostheses with regard to infection rate, mechanical failure rate, and erosion rate. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using Medline and Google Scholar to examine papers from 1973 to the present day. Keywords, such as, "penile prosthesis surgery", "malleable penile prosthesis", "inflatable penile prosthesis", "two-piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP)", and "three-piece IPP" were utilized during the search. A total of 76 papers were included, and all were in English. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: Studies on the latest models of each of the three prostheses (malleable, two-piece IPP, three-piece IPP) revealed patient satisfaction ratings at or above 75%. Both types of IPPs were associated with greater satisfaction and lower erosion rates while malleable prostheses were associated with lower mechanical failure rates. Although no significant differences in infection rates were noted between the prosthesis types, a history of diabetes, obesity, and smoking were predictive of infection events. CONCLUSIONS: The three-piece IPP, if indicated for a suitable patient, is generally accepted as the best type of prosthesis given its biological mimicry to an erect human penis.