Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Radical prostatectomy and simultaneous penile prosthesis implantation: a narrative review

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 32, pages 274–280 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy (RP) represents one of the most commonly used first-line treatment modalities in men with localized prostate cancer (PCa). Despite efforts to preserve the neurovascular bundles with nerve sparing (NS) surgery, erectile dysfunction (ED) remains common after RP and this may significantly affect patients’ quality of life (QoL). The aim of this paper is to evaluate the outcome of simultaneous placement of penile prosthesis and RP. The ideal candidates for simultaneous penile prosthesis implantation are those who report pre-existent refractory ED and patients in whom there is a high risk of extracapsular disease, such as any cT2c or cT3, and undergo non-nerve sparing RP. If the patient chooses to undergo PPI to treat his refractory ED it is clear that this procedure will be associated with higher patients’ satisfaction rates, if carried out simultaneously with RP rather than at a later stage. A simultaneous procedure would avoid two admissions, reduce hospitalization time and guarantee a faster recovery of sexual function, preventing the otherwise unavoidable loss of penile length. Since the urologist does not need to preserve the neurovascular bundles, as the penile implant will take care of postoperative rigidity, RP can be performed more radically from an oncological point of view, thus reducing the risk of recurrence and metastasis, especially in patients with high risk of locally advanced disease. In conclusion, simultaneous PPI with RP provides early sexual rehabilitation, improving patients’ quality of life, without compromising surgical outcomes. However, larger series will be necessary, to better identify the patients who are more likely to benefit from nerve sparing surgery and postoperative penile rehabilitation from those who would are more likely to develop refractory ED post RP and would therefore benefit from simultaneous implantation of a penile prosthesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Van Der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent—update 2013. Eur Urol 2014;65:124–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1311593.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sidana A, Hernandez DJ, Feng Z, Partin AW, Trock BJ, Saha S, et al. Treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer: What younger men choose and why. Prostate 2012;2:58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hatzimouratidis K, Amar E, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Montorsi F, et al. Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction: erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. Eur Urol. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.02.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Salonia A, Burnett AL, Graefen M, Hatzimouratidis K, Montorsi F, Mulhall JP, et al. Prevention and management of postprostatectomy sexual dysfunctions part 2: recovery and preservation of erectile function, sexual desire, and orgasmic function. Eur Urol 2012;62:273–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Montorsi F, McCullough A. Efficacy of sildenafil citrate in men with erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of clinical data. J Sex Med. 2005;2:658–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang X, Wang X, Liu T, He Q, Wang Y, Zhang X. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for treatment of erectile dysfunction following bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e91327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eardley I, Donatucci C, Corbin J, El-Meliegy A, Hatzimouratidis K, McVary K, et al. Pharmacotherapy for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01627.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Porst H, Burnett A, Brock G, Ghanem H, Giuliano F, Glina S, et al. SOP conservative (medical and mechanical) treatment of erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2013;10:130–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Vardi Y, Sprecher E, Gruenwald I. Logistic regression and survival analysis of 450 impotent patients treated with injection therapy: long-term dropout parameters. J Urol. 2000;163:467–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, Joniau S, Matveev VB, Schmid HP, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Martínez-Salamanca JI, Mueller A, Moncada I, Carballido J, Mulhall JP. Penile prosthesis surgery in patients with corporal fibrosis: a state of the art review. J Sex Med. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02281.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Montague DK. Penile prosthesis implantation in the era of medical treatment for erectile dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am. 2011;38:217–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Casabé AR, Sarotto N, Gutierrez C, Bechara AJ. Satisfaction assessment with malleable prosthetic implant of Spectra (AMS) and Genesis (Coloplast) models. Int J Impot Res. 2016;28:228–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bettocchi C, Palumbo F, Spilotros M, Lucarelli G, Palazzo S, Battaglia M, et al. Patient and partner satisfaction after AMS inflatable penile prosthesis implant. J Sex Med. 2010;7:304–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chung E, Van CT, Wilson I, Cartmill RA. Penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment for male erectile dysfunction: clinical outcomes and lessons learnt after 955 procedures. World J Urol. 2013;31:591–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pisano F, Falcone M, Abbona A, Oderda M, Soria F, Peraldo F, et al. The importance of psychosexual counselling in the re-establishment of organic and erotic functions after penile prosthesis implantation. Int J Impot Res. 2015;27:197–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Moher D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Khoudary KP, Dewolf WC, Bruning CO, Morgentaler A. Immediate sexual rehabilitation by simultaneous placement of penile prosthesis in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Initial results in 50 patients. Urology. 1997;50:395–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mondaini N, Cai T, Sarti E, Polloni G, Gavazzi A, Conti D, et al. A case series of patients who underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy with the simultaneous implant of a penile prosthesis: focus on penile length preservation. World J Mens Health. 2018;36:132–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mondaini N, Sarti E, Giubilei G, Gavazzi A, Costanzi A, Belba A, et al. Penile prosthesis surgery in out-patient setting: Effectiveness and costs in the “spending review” era. Arch Ital Di Urol e Androl. 2014;86:161–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gompertz P, Harwood R, Ebrahim S, Dickinson E. Validating the SF-36. Brit Med J. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.305.6854.645-c.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ramsawh HJ, Morgentaler A, Covino N, Barlow DH, DeWolf WC. Quality of life following simultaneous placement of penile prosthesis with radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;174:1395–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ceruti C, Sedigh O, Timpano M, Sibona M, Falcone M, Preto M, et al. Treatment of prostate cancer and sexual rehabilitation when a nerve-sparing procedure is not feasible: Placement of the reservoir for a three-component penile implant during robotic extra-aponeurotic radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.03.179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. H.W. K, J.Y. L, J.K. K, S.U. J, H.D. J. Current status of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. Korean J Urol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.10.629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Andrea Cocci, Gianmartin Cito, Andrea Romano, Graziano Vignolini, Andrea Minervini, Fabrizio Di Maida, Riccardo Campi & Marco Carini

  2. Department of Urology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Gaetano Larganà & Giorgio Ivan Russo

  3. Andrology Center, Villa Donatello Hospital, Florence, Italy

    Nicola Mondaini

Authors
  1. Andrea Cocci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gianmartin Cito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Romano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gaetano Larganà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Graziano Vignolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrea Minervini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fabrizio Di Maida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Riccardo Campi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marco Carini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nicola Mondaini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Giorgio Ivan Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Cocci.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cocci, A., Cito, G., Romano, A. et al. Radical prostatectomy and simultaneous penile prosthesis implantation: a narrative review. Int J Impot Res 32, 274–280 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0176-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0176-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links