Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Pros and Cons of Ectopic IPP Reservoir Placement

Pros and Cons of Ectopic IPP Reservoir Placement Curr Sex Health Rep (2017) 9:166–169 DOI 10.1007/s11930-017-0109-2 MALE AND FEMALE SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS (A BURNETT AND C CARSON, SECTION EDITORS) 1 1 1 T. J. Pagliara & B. R. Viers & A. F. Morey Published online: 31 July 2017 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017 Abstract described by Riemenschneider in 1981 [1], Wilson et al. pop- Purpose of Review The study’spurpose wasto assess recent ularized this alternative approach during penoscrotal inflatable findings for the pros and cons of ectopic reservoir placement penile prosthesis (IPP) placement in 2002 [2, 3�� ]. The high in the field of penile prostheses. submuscular (HSM) technique is a modified, minimally inva- Recent Findings Recent studies have demonstrated that ec- sive, ectopic placement strategy proposed for penoscrotal IPP topic reservoir placement is safe and durable when compared surgery in 2011. The HSM approach involves the reservoir to traditional space of Retzius placement. It has also shown being located just beneath the abdominal wall musculature marked acceptance among polled implanters. The risk of deep in a location higher than the traditional technique described pelvic complications after both placement and removal of ec- by Wilson [4]. topic reservoirs appears to be negligible when performed by Since 2011, we http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Current Sexual Health Reports Springer Journals

Pros and Cons of Ectopic IPP Reservoir Placement

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/pros-and-cons-of-ectopic-ipp-reservoir-placement-a0u58lMK9O
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Urology; Endocrinology
ISSN
1548-3584
eISSN
1548-3592
DOI
10.1007/s11930-017-0109-2
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Curr Sex Health Rep (2017) 9:166–169 DOI 10.1007/s11930-017-0109-2 MALE AND FEMALE SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS (A BURNETT AND C CARSON, SECTION EDITORS) 1 1 1 T. J. Pagliara & B. R. Viers & A. F. Morey Published online: 31 July 2017 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017 Abstract described by Riemenschneider in 1981 [1], Wilson et al. pop- Purpose of Review The study’spurpose wasto assess recent ularized this alternative approach during penoscrotal inflatable findings for the pros and cons of ectopic reservoir placement penile prosthesis (IPP) placement in 2002 [2, 3�� ]. The high in the field of penile prostheses. submuscular (HSM) technique is a modified, minimally inva- Recent Findings Recent studies have demonstrated that ec- sive, ectopic placement strategy proposed for penoscrotal IPP topic reservoir placement is safe and durable when compared surgery in 2011. The HSM approach involves the reservoir to traditional space of Retzius placement. It has also shown being located just beneath the abdominal wall musculature marked acceptance among polled implanters. The risk of deep in a location higher than the traditional technique described pelvic complications after both placement and removal of ec- by Wilson [4]. topic reservoirs appears to be negligible when performed by Since 2011, we

Journal

Current Sexual Health ReportsSpringer Journals

Published: Jul 31, 2017

There are no references for this article.