Revisit Perito Implant® Technique : A Narrative Review
Keywords:
Infrapubic, Perito, Penile Prosthesis, ImpotenceAbstract
Infrapubic penile implant surgery is a viable option for patients with severe penile curvature, shortening, and impaired penile rigidity due to fibrosis of the corpora cavernosa (Sadeghi-Nejad, 2007). Studies have shown that patients who undergo penile implant surgery, particularly the infrapubic approach, experience significantly better erectile function and treatment satisfaction compared to those receiving other treatments such as sildenafil citrate and intracavernous prostaglandin E1 (Rajpurkar & Dhabuwala, 2003). The infrapubic approach offers advantages such as ease of reservoir placement, rapid implantation, and direct vision during the procedure, as well as avoiding an extra incision on the scrotum, which can hinder rehabilitation (Montague & Angermeier, 2000; Vollstedt et al., 2017). Additionally, it has been noted that the infrapubic approach can be quickly learned by urologists who are already comfortable with the transscrotal approach (Kramer & Chason, 2010). However, it is important to consider the drawbacks associated with the infrapubic approach, such as the higher risk of surgical errors during the placement of the device in the corpora (Kramer et al., 2010)
References
Small MP. Small-Carrion penile prosthesis. A new implant for management of impotence. Mayo Clin Proc. 1976 Jun;51(6):336-8. PMID: 1271846
Culley C Carson. 2018. F Brantley Scott: a visionary in the world of urology.Trends in Urology and Men’s Health
Sadeghi-Nejad H. 2007. Penile prosthesis surgery: a review of prosthetic devices and associated complications. J Sex Med. Mar;4(2):296-309. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00434.x. Erratum in: J Sex Med. 2007 Sep;4(5):1520. PMID: 17367425.
Rajpukar A, Dhabuwala CB. 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. Journal of Urology. 2003 Jul;170(1):159–63.
Kramer AC, Sausville J, Schweber A. Practice patterns of urologists performing penile prosthesis surgery vary based on surgeon volume: results of a practice pattern survey. International Journal of Impotence Research [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2024 Jan 16];22(4):262–6. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20555345/ [4] (2000). Current status of pe- nile prosthesis implantation. current urology reports, 1(4), 291-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-000-0009-1
Vollstedt A, Gross MS, Antonini G, Perito PE. The infrapubic surgical approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Translational Andrology and Urology. 2017 Aug;6(4):620–7.
Barrett DM, Furlow WL. Penile prosthesis implantation. In: Segraves RT, Schoenberg HW. editors. Diagnosis and Treatment of Erectile Disturbances: A Guide for Clinicians. New York: Plenum Medical Book Co., 1985:219-40.
Perito PE. Minimally invasive infrapubic inflatable penile implant. J Sex Med 2008;5:27-30. 10.1111/j.1743- 6109.2007.00682.x
Antonini G, Busetto GM, De Berardinis E, Giovannone R, Vicini P, Gentile V, Perito PE. Penile prosthesis implant for erectile dysfunction: A new minimally invasive infrapubic surgical technique. Arch Ital Urol Androl [Internet]. 2016 Jan.14 [cited 2024 Jan. 15];87(4):322-4. Available from: https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/aiua.2015.4.32
Montague DK, Angermeir KW. Surgical approaches for penile prosthesis implantation: penoscrotal vs infrapubic. International Journal of Impotence Research [Internet]. 2003 Oct 1 [cited 2024 Jan 16];15 Suppl 5:S134-135. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14551592/
Hsu GL, Hsieh CH, Chen HS, Ling PY, Wen HS, Liu LJ, et al. The advancement of pure local anesthesia for penile surgeries: can an outpatient basis be sustainable? Journal of Andrology [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2024 Jan 16];28(1):200–5. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16988329/
Wilson SK, Gross M. Celebrating 50 years of penile implants. International Journal of Impotence Research [Internet]. 2023 Jan 17 [cited 2024 Jan 16];35(7):596–600. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10622314/
Habous M, Tai R, Tealab A, Soliman T, Nassar M, Mekawi Z, et al. Defining a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level that predicts increased risk of penile implant infection. BJU international [Internet]. 2018 Feb 1 [cited 2020 Dec 23];121(2):293–300. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7478354/
Polchert M, Dick B, Raheem O. Narrative review of penile prosthetic implant technology and surgical results, including 1 transgender patients. Translational Andrology and Urology. 2021 Jun;10(6):2629–47.
Javaroni V. Editorial comment: clinical recommendations from the european society for sexual medicine exploring part- ner expectations, satisfaction in male and phalloplasty cohorts, the impact of penile length, girth and implant type, res- ervoir placement, and the influence of comorbidities and social circumstances. International braz j urol. 2021 Oct;47(5):1057–60.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 M M Afif, Nabil Dhiya Ulhaq (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing here keep copyright but grant the journal first publication rights, under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License. They can distribute their work non-exclusively elsewhere with an acknowledgment of its first publication in this journal. Posting the work online before and during submission for earlier and greater citation is encouraged, reflecting Open Access benefits.
