Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (764 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Rigid, semi-rigid, or inflatable cylindric hydraulic devices, with either combined or separate reservoir and pumping systems, implanted for the surgical treatment of organic erectile dysfunction.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Prosthesis, Penile; Penile Prostheses; Prostheses, Penile; Artificial Penis; Penis, Artificial; Penile Implant; Implant, Penile; Implants, Penile.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Prostheses and Implants
- See also
- Penile Implantation
Related concepts
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 1,999 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Penile Prosthesis” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 599 of them (30.0%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 658 records.
Reviews account for 546 records (27.3%) and meta-analyses for 13. Randomized controlled trials number 19 (1.0%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 337 |
| 2000-2009 | 405 |
| 2010-2019 | 658 |
| 2020 onward | 599 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 546 | 27.3% |
| Meta-analyses | 13 | 0.7% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 19 | 1.0% |
Method: PubMed query "Penile Prosthesis"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.
Reading the evidence in diagnostics and medical technology
A test or device is judged by how well it detects a condition, how often it gives false alarms or misses cases, and whether using it improves outcomes for people. Accuracy depends on who is tested and how common the condition is, so a test that performs well in a specialist hospital can perform differently in the community. Check the reference standard, the population studied, the sensitivity and specificity and whether results were confirmed in a separate group.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role | 2021 | Meta-analysis Design not recorded in structured metadata | 39 | cc by PMID 33691670 · DOI · PMC7945372 |
| Inflatable penile prosthesis as tissue expander: what is the evidence? | 2017 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 20 | cc by PMID 28537700 · DOI · PMC5678524 |
| Complete Human Penile Scaffold for Composite Tissue Engineering: Organ Decellularization and Characterization | 2019 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 18 | cc by PMID 31704952 · DOI · PMC6841966 |
| Cost Considerations in Penile Implant Surgery from a Global Perspective | 2026 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 0 | cc by PMID 41708921 · DOI · PMC12916983 |
A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundInfection is the most feared complication of a penile prosthesis.
- Closing excerpt
- Meta-analysis concludes that diabetes mellitus is related to a higher risk of penile prosthesis infection.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (195 words)
BackgroundInfection is the most feared complication of a penile prosthesis. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is widely known to increase the risk of several infections, but its role in the penile prosthesis is still controversial. This systematic review aims to show the contemporary scenario of penile prosthesis infection and present a meta-analysis about DM contribution to penile prosthesis infection.MethodsThe review was performed with no language or time limitation, including ten databases. The included articles were about the male population who received a penile prosthesis with no model restriction, with a minimum follow up of 1 year, and outcomes adequately reported.ResultsThe mean infection incidence of penile prosthesis ranged from 0.33 to 11.4%. In early 2000, the general incidence of infection was 3 to 5%, then, the introduction of coated materials decreased it to 0.3 to 2.7%. The meta-analysis showed that diabetes mellitus is related to an increased risk of penile prosthesis infection with an odds ratio of 1.53 (95% CI 1.15-2.04).ConclusionsPenile prosthesis infection decreased in the last decades but remains a significant cause of reoperation, and it is related to lower prosthesis survival. Meta-analysis concludes that diabetes mellitus is related to a higher risk of penile prosthesis infection.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 33691670 · DOI · PMC7945372
Inflatable penile prosthesis as tissue expander: what is the evidence? [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectiveMany patients who undergo inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) replacement are often upsized to larger cylinders, suggesting the IPP may serve as a tissue expander and increase internal penile length.
- Closing excerpt
- Further evaluation is needed to determine if increased cylinder length correlates to increased functional length and patient satisfaction.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (157 words)
ObjectiveMany patients who undergo inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) replacement are often upsized to larger cylinders, suggesting the IPP may serve as a tissue expander and increase internal penile length. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether cylinder length increases with subsequent IPP insertion.Materials and methodsWe queried American Medical Systems and Coloplast Patient Information Form databases to identify patients who underwent IPP placement and replacement between 2004-2013. Patients were grouped by device type and time to replacement (ResultsTwo thousand, seven hundred and forty nine patients (1,532 AMS 700 LGX, 717 AMS 700 CX, and 500 Coloplast Titan) met the inclusion criteria. Mean time between implants was earlier for LGX (29 months) than CX (39 months) and Titan (48 months) patients (p0.5 cm and 40% demonstrated increases of ≥1 cm.ConclusionsAs demonstrated, the IPP may provide tissue expansion over time. Further evaluation is needed to determine if increased cylinder length correlates to increased functional length and patient satisfaction.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 28537700 · DOI · PMC5678524
Complete Human Penile Scaffold for Composite Tissue Engineering: Organ Decellularization and Characterization [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Reconstruction for total penile defects presents unique challenges due to its anatomical and functional complexity.
- Closing excerpt
- This report of successful decellularization of the complete human phallus is an initial step towards developing a tissue engineered human penile scaffold with potential for more successfully restoring cosmetic, urinary and sexual function after complete penile loss.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (246 words)
Reconstruction for total penile defects presents unique challenges due to its anatomical and functional complexity. Standard methods suffer from high complication rates and poor functional outcomes. In this work we have developed the first protocol for decellularizing whole-organ human penile specimens for total penile tissue engineering. The use of a hybrid decellularization scheme combining micro-arterial perfusion, urethral catheter perfusion and external diffusion enabled the creation of a full-size scaffold with removal of immunogenic components. Decellularization was complete as assessed by H&E and immunohistochemistry, while quantification of residual DNA showed acceptably low levels (<50 ng/mg). An intact ECM was maintained with histologic architecture preservation on H&E and SEM as well as preservation of key proteins such as collagen-1, laminin and fibronectin and retention of growth factors VEGF (45%), EGF (57%) and TGF-beta1 (42%) on ELISA. Post-decellularization patency of the cavernosal arteries for future use in reseeding was demonstrated. Scaffold biocompatibility was evaluated using human adipose-derived stromal vascular cells. Live/Dead stains showed the scaffold successfully supported cell survival and expansion. Influence on cellular behavior was seen with significantly higher expression of VWF, COL1, SM22 and Desmin as compared to cell monolayer. Preliminary evidence for regional tropism was also seen, with formation of microtubules and increased endothelial marker expression in the cavernosa. This report of successful decellularization of the complete human phallus is an initial step towards developing a tissue engineered human penile scaffold with potential for more successfully restoring cosmetic, urinary and sexual function after complete penile loss.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 31704952 · DOI · PMC6841966
Cost Considerations in Penile Implant Surgery from a Global Perspective [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review evaluates global trends, economic considerations, and recent innovations in penile prosthesis surgery for erectile dysfunction (ED).
- Closing excerpt
- Future progress requires coordinated policy reform and investment in scalable, equitable care pathways.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (166 words)
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review evaluates global trends, economic considerations, and recent innovations in penile prosthesis surgery for erectile dysfunction (ED). It aims to examine rising procedural costs, disparities in accessibility, and strategies to enhance affordability particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). RECENT FINDINGS: Despite its cost-effectiveness and high patient satisfaction, penile prosthesis surgery remains underutilized due to increasing costs and inconsistent insurance coverage. In the U.S., a shift toward ambulatory surgical centers may help reduce procedural costs. Low-cost devices like the Shah Malleable Prosthesis have improved accessibility in LMICs but face limited global adoption due to regulatory and evidence gaps. Broader health system reforms and novel tools such as predictive digital models may further mitigate economic barriers. Penile prosthesis implantation is a durable and effective treatment for ED but remains financially inaccessible to many patients worldwide. Reducing costs through outpatient surgery, insurance expansion, and validated low-cost devices can improve global access. Future progress requires coordinated policy reform and investment in scalable, equitable care pathways.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41708921 · DOI · PMC12916983
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Penile Prosthesis Surgery: Current Recommendations From the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine [5]
- Research article Infection retardant coated inflatable penile prostheses decrease the incidence of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Research article Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of penile prosthesis infection [7]
- Research article Penile Prosthesis Complications: Planning, Prevention, and Decision Making [8]
- Research article Penile prosthesis surgery: a review of prosthetic devices and associated complications [9]
- Research article Managing the difficult penile prosthesis patient [10]
References
- Gon LM, de Campos CCC, Voris BRI, Passeri LA, Fregonesi A, Riccetto CLZ. A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role. . 2021. PMID 33691670 · DOI · PMC7945372
- Chung PH, Siegel JA, Tausch TJ, Klein AK, Scott JM, Morey AF. Inflatable penile prosthesis as tissue expander: what is the evidence?. . 2017. PMID 28537700 · DOI · PMC5678524
- Tan Y, Landford WN, Garza M, Suarez A, Zhou Z, Coon D. Complete Human Penile Scaffold for Composite Tissue Engineering: Organ Decellularization and Characterization. . 2019. PMID 31704952 · DOI · PMC6841966
- Black K, Momtazi-Mar L, Glick H, Lundy SD, Bole R, Bajic P. Cost Considerations in Penile Implant Surgery from a Global Perspective. . 2026. PMID 41708921 · DOI · PMC12916983
- Levine LA, Becher EF, Bella AJ, Brant WO, Kohler TS, Martinez-Salamanca JI, et al.. Penile Prosthesis Surgery: Current Recommendations From the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. J Sex Med. 2016. PMID 27045255 · DOI
- Mandava SH, Serefoglu EC, Freier MT, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJ. Infection retardant coated inflatable penile prostheses decrease the incidence of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2012. PMID 22999690 · DOI
- Carson CC. Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of penile prosthesis infection. Int J Impot Res. 2003. PMID 14551594 · DOI
- Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, Alzweri LM, Hellstrom WJG. Penile Prosthesis Complications: Planning, Prevention, and Decision Making. Sex Med Rev. 2019. PMID 30033128 · DOI
- Sadeghi-Nejad H. Penile prosthesis surgery: a review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med. 2007. PMID 17367425 · DOI
- Trost LW, Baum N, Hellstrom WJ. Managing the difficult penile prosthesis patient. J Sex Med. 2013. PMID 23551538 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.