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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Neurogenic bladder is an independent risk factor for complications associated with inflatable penile prosthesis implantation

Abstract

Men with neurogenic bladder (NGB) often have concomitant erectile dysfunction and may be considered for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement. However, it is unclear if NGB is a risk factor for complications associated with IPP placement. The aim of this study is to compare surgical outcomes after IPP placement in a contemporary cohort of patients with NGB to that of a non-neurogenic control group. To accomplish this, consecutive records of patients who underwent IPP implantation between 2007 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a known neurologic lesion and documented NGB by clinical or urodynamic criteria were compared with a non-neurogenic control group of men with erectile dysfunction. We found that patients in the NGB cohort were younger (median age 48 vs. 62 years, p < 0.001) and less likely to void spontaneously prior to surgery (3% vs. 97%, p < 0.001). The most common cause for NGB was spinal cord injury (46%). There was a 24.3% overall rate of complication (infection, erosion, or mechanical failure) in the NGB cohort compared with a 7.5% rate in the non-neurogenic control group (p = 0.001). On multivariate logistic regression modeling, NGB (OR 3.47; 95% CI 1.13–10.71; p = 0.03) was independently associated with risk of IPP complication. First time penile prosthesis was associated with lower risk of IPP complication (OR 0.25 95% CI 0.09–0.71; p = 0.01). In conclusion, patients with NGB are at increased risk for complications after IPP placement. Patients should be counseled accordingly, and all efforts should be made to stabilize bladder function prior to surgery.

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

Access options

Buy this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barton GJ, Carlos EC, Lentz AC. Sexual quality of life and satisfaction with penile prostheses. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:178–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rodriguez KM, Kohn TP, Davis AB, Hakky TS. Penile implants: a look into the future. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6 Suppl 5:S860–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Li K, Brandes ER, Chang SL, Leow JJ, Chung BI, Wang Y, et al. Trends in penile prosthesis implantation and analysis of predictive factors for removal. World J Urol. 2019;37:639–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Trost L, Hellstrom WJ. History, contemporary outcomes, and future of penile prostheses: a review of the literature. Sex Med Rev. 2013;1:150–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM. Penile prosthesis infections. Int J Impot Res. 2001;13:326–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilson SK, Delk JR 2nd. Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol. 1995;153(3 Pt 1):659–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pineda M, Burnett AL. Penile prosthesis infections-a review of risk factors, prevention, and treatment. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:389–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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;13:489–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kimoto Y, Iwatsubo E. Penile prostheses for the management of the neuropathic bladder and sexual dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients: long term follow up. Paraplegia. 1994;32:336–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith AD, Sazama R, Lange PH. Penile prosthesis: adjunct to treatment in patients with neurogenic bladder. J Urol. 1980;124:363–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zermann DH, Kutzenberger J, Sauerwein D, Schubert J, Loeffler U. Penile prosthetic surgery in neurologically impaired patients: long-term followup. J Urol. 2006;175:1041–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jarow JP. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol. 1996;156:402–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Steidle CP, Mulcahy JJ. Erosion of penile prostheses: a complication of urethral catheterization. J Urol. 1989;142:736–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur L. Burnett.

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

Dave, C.N., Khalaf, A., Patel, H.D. et al. Neurogenic bladder is an independent risk factor for complications associated with inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Int J Impot Res 32, 520–524 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0210-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0210-3

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links