Background: Implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) has high success and satisfaction rates, but there remains a paucity of evidence examining non-usage of IPP and reasons for discontinuation. Aim: To identify how frequent patients use their prosthesis and their personal reasons for no longer using it. Methods: We conducted a survey of all patients who underwent an IPP implantation by a single surgeon over a 6-year period, between 2012 and 2018. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 114 patients formed the final cohort. Patients were initially surveyed via mail with a questionnaire; those who did not respond were surveyed via telephone. The factors determining patient selection for IPP implantation included suitability for general anesthesia, manual dexterity to use the device by the patient or their partner on a demonstration device, and presence of refractory erectile dysfunction, HbA1C lower than 8.5, or need for a revision of a previously placed IPP. Universally, a 3-piece AMS 700 Series implant was placed via the penoscrotal approach. Data were analyzed with Pearson chi square test, and survivability of the device was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Outcomes: The main outcomes of this study are the frequency of IPP usage and reasons for discontinuation. Results: The survey participation rate was 97%. The mean age of patient was 64 years (range 34-83 years), and the mean time between surgery and completion of survey was 2.98 years (range 0.25-7.4 years). Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated that 68% of the patients were using the IPP at 5 years after implantation. Using the age 70 years as a cutoff, 18 (22%) patients younger than 70 years and 14 (42%) patients older than 70 years dis-continued using the IPP (P = .029). The commonest reasons for discontinuation were poor health to engage in sexual activity (2.6%), loss of companion (19%), loss of interest in sex (2.6%), and device malfunction with no further interest in revision of prosthesis (14%). Clinical Implications: The clinical implication of this study was improved patient selection for device implantation. Strengths and Limitations: To our knowledge, no other study has investigated reasons for patients no longer using their prosthesis. Our study has several limitations including that it is a cross-sectional analysis, our survey is not validated, this is a single-surgeon experience, we have a small sample size, and we did not differentiate between virgin implant and reimplantation. Conclusion: Our study shows a high rate (28%) of non-usage of IPP, more so in men older than the age of 70 years in the first 5 years of implantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the International Society for Sexual Medicine.
