Skip to main content

Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP)

The inflatable penile prosthesis is the gold-standard surgical treatment for medically refractory erectile dysfunction — the highest satisfaction rates among all ED treatments and the most natural-appearing erection of any prosthetic device.[1][2][3]

For procedure-specific detail (operative steps by surgical approach, complications, salvage), see the Penile Implants atlas under 04j — Sexual Dysfunction.

History & Evolution​

First implanted in 1973 by F. Brantley Scott at Baylor — a revolutionary advance in ED management.[4][5][6]

  • 1973 — first three-piece IPP (intracavernosal cylinders + scrotal pump + retropubic reservoir).
  • 1983 — self-contained two-piece (cylinders + pump, no separate reservoir).
  • 1980s–1990s — improved cylinder materials (Bioflex, Parylene), kink-resistant tubing, rear tip extenders, lockout valves to prevent autoinflation.
  • 2001–2002 — antibiotic / antimicrobial coatings: InhibiZone (rifampin / minocycline, AMS) and Coloplast hydrophilic — ~50% reduction in infection.[7][8]
  • 2002 — Wilson described ectopic (submuscular) reservoir placement, avoiding the space of Retzius.[9]
  • 2010s–present — flat reservoirs (Cloverleaf, Conceal); refined pumps (Titan Touch, MS); new manufacturers (Rigicon Infla 10, Zephyr ZSI 475).[10][11][12]

Components & Devices​

Three-Piece IPP (Gold Standard)​

Three components linked by kink-resistant tubing:[1][10][13]

  1. Paired intracavernosal cylinders — saline-filled for rigidity.
  2. Scrotal pump — manual fluid transfer; inflation / deflation mechanism.
  3. Fluid reservoir — saline storage when deflated; space of Retzius or high submuscular.

AMS 700 (Boston Scientific) vs Coloplast Titan vs Rigicon Infla 10​

FeatureAMS 700Coloplast TitanRigicon Infla 10
Cylinder expansionCX circumferential only; LGX length + girthCircumferential onlyCircumferential only
AntimicrobialInhibiZone (rifampin / minocycline)Hydrophilic (surgeon dips antibiotic)None (surgeon dips)
PumpMS — momentary squeezeTitan Touch — one-touch releaseStandard
ReservoirConceal (low-profile)Cloverleaf (flat)Standard
Lockout valveYesYesYes
BiomechanicsSlightly less rigidity at submaximal inflationSlightly greater resistance to penetration / gravityLimited data

References: [10][11][12][14][15][16]

For the step-by-step patient maneuver — how to inflate, how each pump deflates (AMS press-and-hold vs Coloplast one-touch release), the OTR pseudo-malfunction fix, and post-activation cycling — see Device Operation on the Penile Implants page.

Two-Piece IPP​

Self-contained cylinders + pump (no separate reservoir). Suitable for patients who should avoid reservoir placement (prior pelvic surgery, hernia repair) or have limited dexterity. Less rigidity and girth expansion than three-piece devices.[1]

Indications​

Third-line ED therapy when conservative treatment has failed or is contraindicated:[2][3][13]

  • Failed or intolerant of PDE5 inhibitors, vacuum erection devices, intracavernosal injections.
  • Peyronie's disease + ED (most common combined indication).
  • Post-radical-prostatectomy ED refractory to rehabilitation.
  • Ischemic priapism — early (refractory) or delayed (post-fibrosis).
  • Corporal fibrosis from any cause (prior priapism, infection, trauma, prior explantation).
  • Gender-affirming phalloplasty — to achieve neophallus rigidity.
  • Patient preference for definitive surgical treatment.

Preoperative optimization: HbA1c, treatment of active UTI, key pinch strength for pump operation, partner sexual function assessment, thorough informed consent (irreversibility, potential shortening, mechanical failure, infection risk).[17][13][18]

Surgical Approaches​

Penoscrotal / infrapubic / subcoronal — most series show no significant difference in implanted size, achieved length, satisfaction, or infection rate between penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches.[19]

Reservoir placement:[20][21][22][23]

  • Space of Retzius (SOR) — traditional; risks bladder, iliac vessel, and bowel injury.
  • High submuscular (HSM) — increasingly preferred. Baumgarten "Five-Step Technique": 1.0% revision rate; zero deep pelvic complications. HSM reservoirs are ~5× further from bladder and iliac vessels than SOR.[20][21][24]
  • Ectopic — lateral retroperitoneal, intraperitoneal, epigastric extraperitoneal.[23]

Infection Prevention — "No-Touch" Technique​

Antibiotic-coated implants + no-touch surgical technique has reduced infection to 0.46%:[25][26]

  • Antibiotic wound irrigation (vancomycin / gentamicin preferred over betadine).[27]
  • Plastic draping of skin edges to prevent skin-to-implant contact.
  • Surgeon glove changes before handling the device.
  • Minimize device exposure time.

Chawareb 2025 (n = 5,261): perioperative IV antifungal prophylaxis significantly reduced infection (OR 0.22); postoperative oral antibiotics and prolonged IV antibiotics (> 24 h) showed no protective effect.[28]

Outcomes & Satisfaction​

Among the highest of any ED treatment:[2][3][29]

  • Patient satisfaction 88–93% on QoLSPP / EDITS.[29][30][31]
  • Partner satisfaction up to 90–92%.[2][32]
  • AMS 700 CX vs Coloplast Titan: equivalent EDITS scores (77.2 vs 77.5).[31]
  • 20-year follow-up: 41% still using original device with high QoL across functional, relational, personal, and social domains.[33]

Device Survival — Meta-Analysis (n = 20,161)​

TimepointSurvival
1 yr93.3%
3 yr91.0%
5 yr87.2%
10 yr76.8%
15 yr63.7%
20 yr52.9%

Modern series show improved 5-yr survival (90.6% vs older 82.1%, p = 0.01) reflecting iterative device improvements.[34]

Complications​

Cocci 2025 systematic review (n = 92,777 patients, 151 studies) is the most comprehensive complication source.[35]

Infection​

  • Overall 0.03–14.3%, predominantly < 3%.[35][36]
  • Antibiotic-coated devices: 5.3% → 2%; + no-touch technique: 0.46%.[26][8]
  • Risk factors: T2DM (HR 1.56), SCI (HR 2.81), obesity (HR 1.74), concomitant circumcision (HR 2.01), prior IPP infection (OR 4.67), revision surgery.[36][28]
  • Most infections within first 6 mo (2.5% of the 3.1% total); median time to symptoms ~36 days.[36][27]
  • Changing microbiology: with antibiotic coatings selecting against gram-positives, 90.5% of contemporary infections are virulent organisms (gram-negatives, fungi) — driving the antifungal prophylaxis signal above.[27]

Mechanical Failure​

Highly variable; exceeds 15% in about half of studies at 5–11 yr.[35]

  • AMS / Boston Scientific: no predominant failure site — cylinder rupture 41%, pump 33%, tubing 11%, cylinder aneurysm 10%, reservoir 5%.[37]
  • Coloplast: predominantly tubing fracture 78–83%; cylinder failure rare.[38][37]
  • Median time to mechanical failure: 48 mo (BSCI) vs 41 mo (Coloplast).[37]

Other​

  • Erosion 0.02–32.5% (most series < 3%).[35]
  • Urethral injury / corporal perforation — uncommon; more frequent with severe fibrosis (priapism, prior explant).
  • Autoinflation — largely eliminated by lockout valves.[7]
  • Reservoir-related: herniation (HSM, ~1–2.3%), bladder erosion, vascular injury (more common with SOR).[21][22]

Special Populations​

Peyronie's Disease​

Stepwise curvature correction during IPP placement:[3][39][40]

  1. Cylinder inflation alone — corrects ~18%.
  2. Manual modeling (used in ~75%) — median 26° correction.
  3. Tunica albuginea plication — median 40° correction.
  4. Plaque incision / excision + grafting — reserved for severe curvature (> 60°); median 55° (used in ~2%).
  5. PICS (collagen-fleece grafting) — complete straightening in 84% of complex PD.[41]
  6. Scratch technique + postoperative vacuum — residual curvature 17–22° → 8–9° at 24 wk.[42]

Ischemic Priapism​

Early IPP insertion (< 48–72 h of refractory priapism) is increasingly recommended — superior to delayed insertion: 96% satisfaction, no penile shortening, lower revision, fewer perioperative complications.[43][44][45]

Delayed insertion after established fibrosis requires advanced techniques: cutting cavernotomes, narrow-base cylinders, possible corporal reconstruction with grafting.[43][46]

100% no-regret in a post-priapism QoL study.[47]

Gender-Affirming Phalloplasty​

Technically complex — no native erectile tissue. Cylinder wrapping (Dacron, Gore-Tex, or allograft) + pubic-bone fixation.[48][49][50]

  • 5-yr device retention 42–78% (lower than native phallus).[51]
  • Complication rate 36%; revision 43% — counsel that multiple revisions over the lifetime are expected.[49][50]
  • Satisfaction 83–88% despite the high revision burden.
  • 2026 Delphi consensus established the first standardized peri- and postoperative protocol.[48]

See also: Penile Implant After Phalloplasty.

Combined IPP + Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AUS)​

Simultaneous dual implantation for post-prostatectomy ED + SUI is safe and effective:[52][53][54][32]

  • No increased infection, erosion, or malfunction vs single-device implantation.[52][54]
  • 88% patient / 92% partner satisfaction; 96% ≤ 1 pad/day.[32]
  • One database study showed a higher likelihood of IPP reoperation at 1 and 3 yr with dual implantation (AUS outcomes unaffected).[55]

Imaging Considerations​

IPP components are readily identifiable; MRI is safe; CT shows cylinders, reservoir, and pump clearly. See Chorney 2018 and Chung 2026 imaging reviews.[56][57]

Future Directions​

  • Remotely activated / electronically controlled devices.[10][12]
  • Prostheses specifically designed for the transgender neophallus.
  • Next-generation antimicrobial coatings targeting gram-negatives and fungi.
  • Improved biomaterials to extend mechanical longevity beyond the current ~20-yr median.
  • AI-assisted surgical planning and intraoperative guidance.

See also: Malleable Penile Prosthesis, Artificial Urinary Sphincter, Penile Implants Atlas, Implant Models, Reservoir Placement, Infection, Erectile Dysfunction.

References​

1. Goodstein T, Jenkins LC. A Narrative Review on Malleable and Inflatable Penile Implants: Choosing the Right Implant for the Right Patient. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2023;35(7):623-628. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00765-7

2. Shamloul R, Ghanem H. Erectile Dysfunction. Lancet. 2013;381(9861):153-165. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60520-0

3. Levine LA, Becher EF, Bella AJ, et al. Penile Prosthesis Surgery: Current Recommendations From the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2016;13(4):489-518. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.01.017

4. Giordano A, Smarrazzo F, Cilio S, et al. History of Penile Implants: From Implants Made of Bone to Modern Inflatable Penile Implants. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2023;35(7):601-608. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00695-4

5. Lo Re M, Pezzoli M, Garcia Rojo E, et al. Advances in Activation Pumps for Three-Piece Penile Prostheses: A Narrative Review. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01130-6

6. Mobley DF. Early History of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A View From Someone Who Was There. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2015;17(2):225-229. doi:10.4103/1008-682X.140962

7. Pastuszak AW, Lentz AC, Farooq A, Jones L, Bella AJ. Technological Improvements in Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Design Over the Past 40 Years. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2015;12 Suppl 7:415-421. doi:10.1111/jsm.13004

8. 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. The Journal of Urology. 2012;188(5):1855-1860. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.022

9. Hakky T, Lentz A, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Khera M. The Evolution of the Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir and Surgical Placement. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2015;12 Suppl 7:464-467. doi:10.1111/jsm.13011

10. Barnard JT, Cakir OO, Ralph D, Yafi FA. Technological Advances in Penile Implant Surgery. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2021;18(7):1158-1166. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.04.011

11. Lo Re M, Pezzoli M, Cocci A, et al. Removal Rate and Mechanical Failure in Penile Prosthesis Implantation: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2026;38(3):226-237. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01165-9

12. May E, Hanley M, Mulcahy JJ, Gross MS. Technological Advances in Penile Implants: Past, Present, Future. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2023;35(7):629-633. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00689-2

13. Chung E, Bettocchi C, Egydio P, et al. The International Penile Prosthesis Implant Consensus Forum: Clinical Recommendations and Surgical Principles on the Inflatable 3-Piece Penile Prosthesis Implant. Nature Reviews Urology. 2022;19(9):534-546. doi:10.1038/s41585-022-00607-z

14. Atri E, Wong V, Barengo NC, Nieder AM, Polackwich AS. A Comparison Between AMS 700 and Coloplast Titan: A Systematic Literature Review. Cureus. 2020;12(11):e11350. doi:10.7759/cureus.11350

15. Wallen JJ, Barrera EV, Ge L, et al. Biomechanical Comparison of Inflatable Penile Implants: A Cadaveric Pilot Study. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2018;15(7):1034-1040. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.05.014

16. Scovell JM, Ge L, Barrera EV, et al. Longitudinal and Horizontal Load Testing of Inflatable Penile Implant Cylinders of Two Manufacturers. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2016;13(11):1750-1757. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.09.015

17. Chung E, Mulhall J. Practical Considerations in Inflatable Penile Implant Surgery. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2021;18(8):1320-1327. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.05.017

18. Masterson JM, Horodyski L, Patel R, et al. Impact of Key Pinch Strength on Patient Preference for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2020;32(1):113-116. doi:10.1038/s41443-019-0129-8

19. Otero JR, Manfredi C, Wilson SK. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly About Surgical Approaches for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2022;34(2):128-137. doi:10.1038/s41443-020-0319-4

20. Kavoussi M, Cook GS, Nordeck SM, et al. Distance From Critical Pelvic Structures: Radiographic Comparison of High Submuscular and Space of Retzius IPP Reservoir Placement Techniques. Urology. 2022;160:136-141. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.11.034

21. Baumgarten AS, Kavoussi M, VanDyke ME, et al. Avoiding Deep Pelvic Complications Using a 'Five-Step' Technique for High Submuscular Placement of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoirs. BJU International. 2020;126(4):457-463. doi:10.1111/bju.15106

22. Kavoussi M, Cook GS, Nordeck SM, et al. Radiographic Assessment of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Location Variability in Contemporary Practice. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2021;18(12):2039-2044. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.09.015

23. Sedigh O, Soleimanzadeh F, Buffi N, et al. Penile Implant Reservoir Placement Methods: Is There a Gold Standard? Asian Journal of Andrology. 2026. doi:10.4103/aja202593

24. Baumgarten AS, Kavoussi M, Ortiz NM, et al. High Submuscular IPP Reservoir Placement: The "Five-Step" Technique. Urology. 2020;145:298. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.07.039

25. Ramos P, Abreu S, Morgado A, Tomada N. Infection Prevention Strategies in Penile Prosthesis Implantation: A Narrative Review. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41443-026-01270-3

26. Eid JF, Wilson SK, Cleves M, Salem EA. Coated Implants and "No Touch" Surgical Technique Decreases Risk of Infection in Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation to 0.46%. Urology. 2012;79(6):1310-1315. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.076

27. Bole R, Habashy E, Yang D, et al. Timing and Causative Organisms Associated With Modern Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Infection. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2023;20(1):107-112. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdac001

28. Chawareb EA, Hammad MAM, Azad B, et al. Perioperative Antimicrobial Strategies in IPP Surgery: Associations Between Antifungals, Oral Antibiotics, and IV Antibiotic Duration, and Infection Outcomes. The Journal of Urology. 2025. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000004716

29. Luna E, Rodriguez D, Barrios D, et al. Evaluation of Quality of Life After Inflatable Penile Implantation. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2022;19(9):1472-1478. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2022.06.018

30. Ralla B, Goranova I, Börnstein N, et al. Complications, Functional and Quality of Life Outcomes Following Primary and Secondary Implantation of Penile Prosthesis. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2018;30(2):49-53. doi:10.1038/s41443-017-0005-3

31. Morgado A, Cavadas AS, Pacheco Figueiredo L, Tomada N. Long-Term Patient-Reported Satisfaction With Different Inflatable Penile Prosthesis: AMS 700CX vs Coloplast Titan. Revista Internacional de Andrologia. 2018;16(3):112-118. doi:10.1016/j.androl.2017.07.003

32. Van Huele A, Van Renterghem K. Simultaneous Implant of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis and Artificial Urinary Sphincter. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2025;37(1):78-81. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00718-0

33. Chierigo F, Capogrosso P, Dehò F, et al. Long-Term Follow-Up After Penile Prosthesis Implantation — Survival and Quality of Life Outcomes. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2019;16(11):1827-1833. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.08.001

34. Miller LE, Khera M, Bhattacharyya S, et al. Long-Term Survival Rates of Inflatable Penile Prostheses: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urology. 2022;166:6-10. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2022.03.026

35. Cocci A, Capogrosso P, Minhas S, et al. Penile Prosthesis Implantation: A Systematic Review of Intraoperative and Postoperative Complications. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01108-4

36. Brant W, Sato R, Rojanasarot S, et al. Infection Rates and Risk Factors Following Inflatable Penile Prosthetic Implantation. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2025. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf224

37. Griggs R, Henry G, Vasylieva V, Karpman E. Mechanical Failure of Inflatable Penile Prostheses: Time to Failure and Reasons for Replacement. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2025;22(5):909-915. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf053

38. Smelser AM, VanDyke ME, Nealon SW, et al. Mechanical Indications for Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Revision. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2023;20(7):1044-1051. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad064

39. Hammad MAM, Barham DW, Simhan J, et al. A Multicenter Evaluation of Penile Curvature Correction in Men With Peyronie's Disease Undergoing Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2025;22(2):349-355. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae192

40. Berookhim BM, Karpman E, Carrion R. Adjuvant Maneuvers for Residual Curvature Correction During Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Men With Peyronie's Disease. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2015;12 Suppl 7:449-454. doi:10.1111/jsm.13001

41. Falcone M, Preto M, Peretti F, et al. The Use of Collagen Fleece to Correct Residual Curvature During Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation (PICS Technique). The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2023;20(2):229-235. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdac003

42. Antonini G, De Berardinis E, Del Giudice F, et al. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement, Scratch Technique and Postoperative Vacuum Therapy. The Journal of Urology. 2018;200(3):642-647. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.060

43. Yassin M, Chen R, Ager M, Desouky E, Minhas S. Penile Implants in Low Flow Priapism. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2023;35(7):651-663. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00787-1

44. Calopedos R, Trubbia D, Ralph D, Lee WG. Early Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Refractory Ischaemic Priapism: A Narrative Review. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01199-z

45. Ralph DJ, Garaffa G, Muneer A, et al. The Immediate Insertion of a Penile Prosthesis for Acute Ischaemic Priapism. European Urology. 2009;56(6):1033-1038. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.044

46. Clavijo RI, Sávio LF, Prakash NS, et al. Three-Piece Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Refractory Ischemic Priapism — Tips and Tricks. Urology. 2017;106:233-235. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.04.032

47. Dighero I, Naylor K, Looney A, et al. Quality of Life Outcomes Following Penile Prosthesis Insertion in the Post-Ischaemic Priapism Setting. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01073-y

48. Levy M, Falcone M, Bohr J, et al. Penile Implants After Phalloplasty in Transgender Individuals: A Consensus-Based Surgical Clinical Protocol. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2026;23(2):qdaf365. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf365

49. Rooker SA, Vyas KS, DiFilippo EC, et al. The Rise of the Neophallus: A Systematic Review of Penile Prosthetic Outcomes and Complications in Gender-Affirming Surgery. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2019;16(5):661-672. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.03.009

50. Falcone M, Garaffa G, Gillo A, et al. Outcomes of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Insertion in 247 Patients Completing Female to Male Gender Reassignment Surgery. BJU International. 2018;121(1):139-144. doi:10.1111/bju.14027

51. Kocjancic E, Jaunarena JH, Schechter L, Acar Ö. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation After Gender Affirming Phalloplasty With Radial Forearm Free Flap. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2020;32(1):99-106. doi:10.1038/s41443-019-0153-8

52. Segal RL, Cabrini MR, Harris ED, et al. Combined Inflatable Penile Prosthesis-Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation: No Increased Risk of Adverse Events. The Journal of Urology. 2013;190(6):2183-2188. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.084

53. Ammirati E, Polisini G, Giammò A. Surgical Treatment Options and Outcomes for Concomitant Treatment of Post-Prostatectomy Erectile Dysfunction and Male Stress Urinary Incontinence. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2026;38(3):193-205. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01202-7

54. Boysen WR, Cohen AJ, Kuchta K, Park S, Milose J. Combined Placement of Artificial Urinary Sphincter and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Does Not Increase Risk of Perioperative Complications or Impact Long-Term Device Survival. Urology. 2019;124:264-270. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.10.033

55. Patel N, Golan R, Halpern JA, et al. A Contemporary Analysis of Dual Inflatable Penile Prosthesis and Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outcomes. The Journal of Urology. 2019;201(1):141-146. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.046

56. Chorney ET, Ramchandani P, Jaffe WI, Siegelman ES. CT and MR Imaging Features of Artificial Urinary Sphincters, Penile Prostheses, and Other Devices in the Male Lower Genitourinary Tract. RadioGraphics. 2018;38(3):794-805. doi:10.1148/rg.2018170087

57. Chung AD, Aswani Y, Tsai LL. Imaging Review of Male Genitourinary Devices and Augmentations. European Journal of Radiology. 2026;199:112829. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2026.112829