The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) has become the gold standard treatment for erectile dysfunction among men refractory to medical therapies. Among the many treatments for erectile dysfunction, implantation of a penile prosthesis has been associated with high patient satisfaction rates and low mechanical failure rates. In this special issue, seven articles are presented, including primary research, reviews, and methodological reports, to highlight outcomes related to patient satisfaction with IPPs, advances in surgical placement techniques, and methods for penile size enhancement concomitant with implant placement.

Among the many treatments for erectile dysfunction, implantation of a penile prosthesis has been associated with high patient satisfaction rates. Specifically, the placement of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) confers the highest rates of satisfaction. We reviewed the literature over the past 20 years regarding satisfaction rates for penile prostheses, with a focus on patients who had undergone an initial IPP implantation for erectile dysfunction. In all, 194 articles were reviewed, and of these, nine met inclusion criteria for analysis and data collation. We determined contemporary satisfaction rates to reflect patients’ experiences with newer products and surgical approaches. Of importance, we noted that varied metrics were used to determine patient satisfaction, and overall satisfaction could not be precisely determined. Nevertheless, we found that patients in general were quite satisfied with their three-piece IPPs and restoration of sexual function. We also identified reasons for patient dissatisfaction and reviewed the literature to find ways by which satisfaction could be improved. Given the various means by which patient satisfaction was determined, future efforts should include standardized and validated questionnaires.

The inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) has high patient satisfaction rates and good mechanical reliability rates in multiple studies. The number one patient compliant at six months is penile length. Recently, new technique for aggressive sizing of the cylinders has been published on in the literature. One IPP company has produced a new product that has longer length cylinders (XL) than those available. However, traditionally long cylinders were felt to lack axial rigidity. Therefore, a prospective, multicenter, central IRB-approved, monitored study was performed on the new product to address these concerns. At 2 centers, a total of 17 patients underwent surgical implantation of these new XL cylinders. These patients were questioned for patient satisfaction and tested for axial rigidity using a Fastsize Erectile QualityMonitor. The results showed excellent patient satisfaction rates and great axial rigidity with the Fastsize Erectile Quality Monitor. The XL cylinders appear to give the IPP surgeon the ability to use longer cylinders with good patient satisfaction and great axial rigidity.

Here we present an overview of various techniques performed concomitantly during penile prosthesis surgery to enhance penile length and girth. We report on the technique of ventral phalloplasty and its outcomes along with augmentation corporoplasty, suprapubic lipectomy, suspensory ligament release, and girth enhancement procedures. For the serious implanter, outcomes can be improved by combining the use of techniques for each scar incision. These adjuvant procedures are a key addition in the armamentarium for the serious implant surgeon.

The leading patient complaint during the perioperative period for penile prosthesis implantation is postoperative pain, while emesis and urticaria also affect the procedure’s perceived success. In analyzing surgical outcomes, assessment of the anesthetic for postoperative pain and side effects should be included. This paper retrospectively reviews 90 consecutive, primary inflatable penile prosthetic operations performed by a single surgeon at one privatemedical center. Fifty-seven patients were included in final analysis. Patients who had more than one procedure that day or who used chronic pain medication were excluded. The type and amount of each drug used for each respective side effect (within the first 24 hours after procedure) were compared to determine relative benefit. Twenty patients received general anesthesia (denoted herein as “GA”) and 37 received spinal (or also known as subarachnoid) anesthesia (denoted herein as “SA”). Patients receiving GA had significantly greater (P < 0.0001) occurrence and amount of intravenous pain treatment than those receiving SA. Patients with SA required less intravenous pain medication and less treatment for nausea/emesis.