Editorial Page 1 of 6 Penoscrotal three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement: surgical technique Matthew J. Watson, Anand Shridharani Department of Urology, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN, USA Correspondence to: Anand Shridharani. Department of Urology, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN, USA. Email:
[email protected]. Received: 06 April 2019; Accepted: 11 November 2019; Published: 05 July 2020. doi: 10.21037/jovs.2019.11.09 View this article at: http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jovs.2019.11.09 Introduction Table 1 Penoscrotal IPP attributes Advantages of penoscrotal IPP placement The development of the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) in 1973 changed the landscape of erectile dysfunction Optimal corporal exposure (ED) management. It is the first and only treatment to Minimal risk of dorsal nerve injury prove efficacious in all males while simulating an erect Optimal approach in severely obese and flaccid state. Subsequent developments in the device, Anchoring of pump directly in scrotum such as new cylinder designs to prevent aneurysm, antibiotic coatings to reduce infection and lockout Optimal approach in patients with severe corporal fibrosis valves to prevent autoinflation, have caused the device Minimal scar to be widely accepted and utilized. Now IPPs more Can perform concomitant scrotoplasy, AUS placement, Mini- closely approximate natural flaccidity, natural erection Jupette (sling) through same incision and are much more reliable. The penoscrotal approach Disadvantages of penoscrotal IPP placement to IPP placement is most common approach utilized Blind placement of reservoir and performed in over 80% of the IPPs placed (1). Although the penoscrotal approach does not allow direct Increased scrotal swelling visualization of the reservoir placement, it likely derives IPP, inflatable penile prosthesis.