Penile and testicular prosthesis following gender-affirming phalloplasty and scrotoplasty: a narrative review and technical insights

Abstract

Background and Objective Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals may seek gender-affirming phalloplasty with specific functional goals, including erectile function sufficient for penetrative sexual intercourse. Individuals seeking penile prosthesis placement must accept the potential risks to their phallic anatomy. Methods We review current practices at our center and narrative review of literature discussing techniques for penile prosthesis and testicular prosthesis placement after phalloplasty and scrotoplasty, as well as surgical outcomes, and quality of life outcomes where available. Key Content and Findings Early discussion of a staged approach to phallic construction with a last step of implant placement is important during initial phalloplasty counseling. Pre-operative counseling at our multi-disciplinary center includes: discussion of surgical history, complications, goals and priorities; physical exam to evaluate phallic size and position, scrotal size, and other anatomic findings that may influence prosthesis selection; urinary evaluation, including uroflowmetry with post-void residual, and a cystoscopy with retrograde urethrogram if indicated based on symptoms or urinary studies, and discussion of surgical risks, benefits and alternatives. Although none of the commercially available penile prosthesis devices in the United States are designed for phalloplasty, modern inflatable and malleable prostheses are adapted for use in the post-phalloplasty setting. Due to the lack of native corpora cavernosa, highly variable phallic anatomy, and the need to adapt implants designed for natal penile anatomy, complication rates of prosthesis placement after phalloplasty remain high, with reported ranges of complications from 20% to 80%. Conclusions Major complications requiring surgical revision are common relative to implant placement in natal penile anatomy, and include: infection requiring explantation, device extrusion, erosion, migration or malposition, inadequate rigidity, poor aesthetic result, pain, decrease or loss of erogenous and/or tactile sensation, device failure, injury to the urethra, and injury to the neurovascular supply of the penis with resultant partial or complete flap loss. This broad range of complication rates represents the variability with which results are reported and reflect a lack of clear reporting guidelines, significant variability in techniques, and need for more standardization. To optimize outcomes, it is important that surgeons have an in-depth understanding of phalloplasty anatomy and are equipped to manage potential complications in the short- and long-term.