Abstract
Penile implants offer a dependable way of restoring erections in virtually all motivated patients. The satisfaction rate among both patients and partners using these devices is high. Advances in technology have reduced the infection rate and increased the mechanical reliability of these products. However, too often, urologists do not present this option with the same authority as other treatments. The reason is fear of complications and lack of expertise in managing them. Although they are not very frequent, complications may be catastrophic. The most significant postoperative complication associated with the implant surgery is infection of the device, which is quite frequent, but some other important complications are distal and proximal perforation of the albuginea, SST deformity, “S-shaped” deformity of the penis, erosion of a component, and mechanical malfunction of the device. The best way to manage complications is to prevent them, but we do not have many diagnostic tools available. Diagnosis is based on clinical history and physical examination, but imaging techniques are also needed to explore the prosthesis “in situ” to plan the surgical approach if it is needed. In this article we review the different imaging techniques used for the diagnosis of complications of prosthetic surgery of the penis, including conventional radiology, use of sonography, the role of CT scan and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the penile prosthesis. We conclude that MRI is the most valuable method for the diagnosis of penile prosthesis complications. It is not an ionizing radiation imaging method and has the unique feature among imaging techniques of demonstrating penile anatomy in three orthogonal planes. It is superior to any other imaging method in the definition of soft tissue contrast.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Montague DK, Barada JH, Belker AM et al. (1996) Clinical guidelines panel on erectile dysfunction: summary report on the treatment of organic erectile dysfunction. J Urol 156:2007–2011
Rajpurkar A, Dhabuwala CB (2003) Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice. J Urol 170:159–163
Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW (1973) Management of erectile impotence: use of implantable inflatable prosthesis. Urology 2:80
Montague DK, Angermeier KW (2003) Contemporary aspects of penile prosthesis implantation. Urol Int 70:141–146
Nielsen KT, Bruskewitz RC (1989) Semirigid and malleable rod penile prostheses. Urol Clin North Am 16:13–23
Kaftan B, Fisch M, Schreiter F (2001) Surgery of the penis: reconstruction and prostheses. Curr Opin Urol 11:263–265
Govier FE, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ, Pritchett TR, Kramer-Levien D (1998) Mechanical reliability, surgical complications, and patient and partner satisfaction of the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 52:282–286
Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE (2000) Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. AMS 700CX Study Group. J Urol 164:376–380
Parulkar BG, Hamid S, Dhabuwala CB (1994) Revision surgery for penile implants. Int J Impot Res 6:17–23
Wilson SK, Cleves MA, Delk JR 2nd (1999) Comparison of mechanical reliability of original and enhanced Mentor Alpha I penile prosthesis. J Urol 162:715–718
Dubocq F, Tefilli MV, Gheiler EL, Li H, Dhabuwala CB (1998) Long-term mechanical reliability of multicomponent inflatable penile prosthesis: comparison of device survival. Urology 52:277–281
Carson CC (2003) Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of penile prosthesis infection. Int J Impot Res 15 [Suppl 5]:S139–146
Mulcahy JJ (2000) Long-term experience with salvage of infected penile implants. J Urol 163:481–482
Carson CC (2003) Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of penile prosthesis infection. Int J Impot Res 15 [Suppl 5]:S139–146
Wilson SK, Carson CC, Cleves MA, Delk JR2nd (1998) Quantifying risk of penile prosthesis infection with elevated glycosylated hemoglobin. J Urol 159:1537–1540
Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE (2000) Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. AMS 700CX Study Group. J Urol 164:376–380
Cohan RH, Dunnick NR, Carson CC (1989) Radiology of penile prostheses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 152:925–931
Suarez G, Baum N (1987) Ultrasonography in evaluation of mechanical problems of inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology 30:388–389
Epstein S, Ramanathan K, Yaghoobian J, Chaudary RR (). Sonographic appearance of the reservoir of an inflatable penile prosthesis. J Clin Ultrasound. 1987 Jun;15(5):353–6.
Thiel DD, Broderick GA, Bridges M (2003) Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating inflatable penile prosthesis malfunction and complaints. Int J Impot Res 15 [Suppl 5]:S155–161
Vossough A, Pretorius ES, Siegelman ES, Ramchandani P, Banner MP (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging of the penis. Abdom Imaging 27:640–659
Hricak H, Marotti M, Gilbert TJ, Lue,TF, Wetzel LH, McAninch JW, Tanagho EA (1988) Normal penile anatomy and abnormal penile conditions: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology 169:683
Levin MF, Munk PL, Vellet AD, Chin JL (1994) Self-contained, inflatable penile prosthesis: magnetic resonance appearance. Australas Rad 38:51
Shellock FG, Curtis JS (1991) MR imaging and biomedical implants, materials, and devices: an updated review. Radiology 180:541
Moncada I, Hernandez C, Jara J, Hernandez L, Lafuente J, Lledo E, Rodriguez E, De Tejada IS (1998) Buckling of cylinders may cause prolonged penile pain after prosthesis implantation: a case control study using magnetic resonance imaging of the penis. J Urol 160:67–71
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moncada, I., Jara, J., Cabello, R. et al. Radiological assessment of penile prosthesis: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. World J Urol 22, 371–377 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-004-0427-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-004-0427-7