Increasingly, cadaver models are being accessed for the delivery of open urological surgical training programs to facilitate technical surgical skill set acquisition and for competency assessment. 1 This study by Krishnappa et al. elegantly addresses the topic of surgical training of inflatable penile prosthesis. 2 This experimental cadaveric work provides interesting results on which to build, challenging the scientific community to answer the implicit question: In a clinical setting, which surgical training improves penile prosthesis outcomes? In my opinion, the authors leave us with two unaddressed issues. Is cadaveric hands-on workshop training the optimal education system in Asia, including Japan, where there are few cases of penile prosthesis? Even more important, how do the experimental results of this study translate in real-life clinical settings? Clearly, more clinical data are required. Independent, sufficiently powered, prospective, randomized clinical trials would be useful, but difficult. Since their popularization, genitourinary prosthetics have remained a gold standard therapy for the treatment of erectile dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence. They have also represented an area of significant innovation, which has contributed to excellent long-term outcomes. Beyond device innovation, the future of prosthetics is also one of expanding geographic boundaries, which necessitates variable cost modeling and regulatory considerations. Surgical trends are also changing, with a greater emphasis on non-narcotic, postoperative pain control, outpatient surgeries, and adjunctive techniques to lengthen the penis and address concomitant stress incontinence, among others. Concomitant with device and surgical changes, future considerations also include a greater need for education and training, particularly given the rapid expansion of sexual medicine into developing nations.