Photo Credit: Ed Reschke

The following is a summary of “Cavernous tissue preservation technique versus conventional technique during penile prosthesis implantation: a prospective comparative study,” published in the February 2025 issue of World Journal of Urology by Alhefnawy et al. 

A few studies with long follow-ups compared cavernous tissue preservation and conventional penile prosthesis techniques. 

Researchers conducted a retrospective study comparing cavernous tissue preservation and conventional penile prosthesis techniques for satisfaction and perioperative outcomes. 

They randomized 60 patients with severe erectile dysfunction into 2 equal groups: conventional malleable penile prosthesis implantation and cavernous tissue-sparing technique. Prosthesis function and satisfaction were assessed at 6 weeks, 3-6 and 12-months using EDITS and QoLSPP questionnaires. Perioperative data were recorded, and residual penile tumescence was evaluated. 

The results showed that the modified EDITS scores were 76.9 ± 18 at 3 months, 79 ± 17 at 6 months, and 82.3 ± 16 at 12 months. QoLSPP showed high satisfaction in 46 (73.8%) patients, with 25 (83.3%) in the cavernous tissue-sparing group and 21 (70.0%) in the conventional group. Lower satisfaction was reported by 14 (26.2%) patients, including 5 (16.7%) in the cavernous tissue-sparing group and 9 (30.0%) in the conventional group. Residual penile tumescence was significantly higher in the cavernous tissue-sparing group (26/30, 86.6%) than in the conventional group (2/30, 6.6%) (P < .001). Highly satisfied patients had significantly lower age (P = 0.025) and BMI (P = 0.001). 

Investigators found a significantly higher incidence of residual penile tumescence in the cavernous tissue-sparing group. They observed that age and BMI affected male satisfaction after PPI. 

Source: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00345-025-05476-w