Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 17, 2026
Transcorporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Placement in a Case Requiring Revision for Urethral Atrophy
Published on: June 16, 2022
Ectopic Penile Prosthesis Reservoir Placement: An Anatomic Cadaver Model of the High Submuscular Technique
Matthew J Ziegelmann1, Boyd R Viers1, Derek J Lomas1
1Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Introduction:
High submuscular ectopic placement of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) reservoirs via the inguinal canal has been popularized as an alternative to the retropubic (orthotopic) location, particularly among men with prior pelvic surgery. Published results suggest minimal complications and high patient satisfaction. However, in our practice, we identified several patients presenting for IPP revision after high submuscular placement who were found to have reservoirs within the peritoneal cavity.
Aim:
Given the potential for complications, we performed a cadaveric study to define the anatomic location of reservoirs placed using this technique.
Methods:
We utilized 10 fresh male cadavers without embalming. Bilateral ectopic reservoir placement (10 AMS Conceal [Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA] and 10 Coloplast Cloverleaf [Coloplast Corp, Humlebaek, Denmark]) was performed using the high submuscular technique via a penoscrotal incision. Strict adherence to published reports detailing the technique was emphasized to assure reliability of findings.
Main Outcome Measures:
Anatomic dissection was performed to identify reservoir location within the abdominal wall layers.
Results:
Twenty IPP reservoirs were placed without difficulty or concern for inadvertent malpositioning. Sixteen reservoirs (80%) were found anterior to the transversalis fascia, including 7 (35%) deep to the rectus muscle and 9 (45%) deep to the external oblique fascia and lateral to the rectus muscle belly. Two reservoirs (10%) were identified in the retroperitoneal space, while 1 (5%) was preperitoneal (deep to transversalis fascia) and 1 (5%) was intraperitoneal.
Conclusion:
Placement of IPP reservoirs using the high submuscular technique results in variable anatomic locations, including within or immediately superficial to the peritoneal cavity. Given the lack of immediate recognition and risk of delayed complications with suboptimal reservoir placement, further studies are mandated to assess the long-term safety of the technique.
