DOI: 10.1093/jsxmed/qdae001.275 ISSN: 1743-6095

(288) Trends in Penile Prosthesis Placement in Men with Erectile Dysfunction

J Schardein, N Svare, M Jimbo, JJ Horns, N Driggs, R Das, J Hotaling
  • Urology
  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Endocrinology
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Psychiatry and Mental health



Erectile Dysfunction (ED) is a common problem impacting 20% of all men. Current treatment options include oral medications, vacuum erection devices, intraurethral suppositories, intracavernosal injections, and penile prosthesis placement (PPP). A shared decision-making framework is increasingly utilized for treatment decisions where an appropriate treatment is selected from all options based on the values and priorities of the patient and their partner.


Our objective is to identify trends in PPP, including the proportion of patients who pursue PPP as an initial treatment as well as the time from ED diagnosis to PPP.


We retrospectively reviewed all men with an ED diagnosis based on ICD9/ICD10 codes using the IBM MarketScan insurance claims database. The initial treatment option processed through an insurance claim following an ED diagnosis was identified and categorized using ICD, HCPCS, NDC, J, and CPT codes. Time from ED diagnosis to PPP was also recorded. Only patients with at least one year of enrollment pre-ED diagnosis and with at least one year of follow-up were included. Linear regressions were performed to investigate the trends of each year based on the time of initial ED diagnosis.


We identified a total of 670,096 patients diagnosed with ED between 2012-2019. The mean age was 56 years (47-62). Of those patients, 11% were smokers, 29% had diabetes, 24% had cardiovascular disease, 65% had hypertension, and 29% were obese. Among those who received treatment, the most common initial treatment was oral medications in 26% of patients. PPP was an initial treatment in <1% of patients. The proportion of patients who underwent this surgical intervention as an initial treatment significantly decreased from 2012-2019 (P<0.001) as patients utilized other initial treatment modalities more commonly. Over the same period, the time from ED diagnosis to PPP significantly decreased from approximately 500 days in 2012 to <200 days in 2019 (P=0.001).


Although the proportion of patients who utilize other ED treatment options prior to PPP is higher, patients diagnosed with ED more recently undergo PPP in a significantly shorter timeframe. Utilization of other treatment modalities as an initial treatment option may stem from changes in insurance coverage. Patients moving more quickly from an ED diagnosis to PPP is likely due to several factors, including improvements in the device leading to less mechanical and infectious complications, familiarity with the device due to marketing, and an earlier discussion with the physician about the device based on a shared decision-making model.


Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Inherent bio, Paterna bio, Firmtech, Turtle health, Maximus, Carrot.

More from our Archive