Almothasib, J

Abstract Introduction Device malfunction remains a serious concern for patients with inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), with pump failure being one of leading causes of revision surgery. Complete device replacement has been the traditional approach, but partial device replacement for the pump may offer a less invasive and cost-effective alternative, with potentially lower complication risk. Objective To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of pump replacement (with or without obvious tubing leak/fracture), manipulation or fluid addition in patients undergoing IPP revision surgery. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent IPP pump replacement with or without additional component exchange by a single surgeon, between January 2018 and April 2025. Thirty patients met the inclusion criteria. Clinical, intraoperative and postoperative data were collected and descriptively analyzed. Outcomes included postoperative infectious and non-infectious complication rates. Results The median age at revision was 77 years, with a median time to revision of 76 months post-implantation. Most common indications were frozen or pump difficulties (67%), pump + tubing damage (30%) and fluid addition requirement (10%). No intraoperative complications occurred. Postoperative complications were reported in 3 patients (10.0%), all due to mechanical malfunction, with no infections observed. Median time to complication was 24 months (IQR 7–72). One patient progressed to IPP explanation after successive revisions for impending erosion not thought related to pump manipulation. Another underwent complete replacement at 7 months for fluid leak from reservoir. A third required non-exchange revision at 24 months. The majority (91%) received Coloplast pumps. The median operative time was 53 minutes (IQR 43–70). Conclusions Pump replacement appears to be a safe and effective option for select patients, potentially reducing surgical morbidity and preserving viable components. The absence of infection in this series is reassuring, particularly in a revision setting where infection risk is amplified. Consideration of device age and patient specific factors is important in guiding the choice between partial and complete component exchange. Disclosure No