How do patients report sensory changes after penile implant surgery over short and long term?
Executive summary
Studies and case series show mixed reports on sensory change after penile implant or related penile surgery: some prospective studies found no significant change in glans sensitivity at 6 weeks and 6 months (e.g., no measurable glans sensory loss after inflatable penile prosthesis) while electrophysiologic and observational series report objective decreases in some autonomic measures and patient‑reported sensory complaints or numbness in a minority of cases (examples: reduced electrodermal amplitude after implantation [1]; “reduced sensation” is a counseling point and reported complication in multiple series [2] [3]). Cosmetic subcutaneous implants (Penuma) and grafting procedures show higher rates of patient‑reported sensory changes in case series (up to ~15–44% in small cohorts) [4] [5] [6].
1. What patients actually report — subjective complaints vs. measured change
Patient reports commonly include “reduced sensation” or altered penile sensation as one possible complication; such complaints are included in counseling checklists and satisfaction studies alongside pain and scarring, indicating clinicians see it as a real patient concern [2] [3]. Small specialty series of cosmetic Penuma explants recorded sensory changes in 15–44% of patients after explant in their cohorts, showing that for certain implant types and complication pathways patients frequently describe altered sensation [4] [5] [6]. By contrast, a prospective study using biothesiometry found no statistically significant change in glans sensitivity after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) at 6 weeks and 6 months, suggesting subjective complaints do not always map to measurable glans sensory loss [7].
2. Objective testing gives a nuanced picture
Electrophysiological studies show surgery can change measurable parameters without clear clinical sensory loss: one study found a significant reduction in stimulated electrodermal activity amplitude after penile prosthesis surgery (from 2159±700 mV to 1413±515 mV, p=0.017), which the authors interpreted as reduced autonomic innervation but argued it did not equate to somatic sensory loss [1]. Other objective measures (biothesiometer readings) in prospective cohorts showed no significant decline of glans sensation over 6 months after IPP [7]. The literature therefore separates autonomic/motor changes from patient‑perceived somatic sensation.
3. Short‑term timeline — most complaints appear early and often improve
Evidence from related penile surgeries (plaque incision and grafting for Peyronie’s disease) and implant follow‑up indicates sensation loss or changes are more common early and often decrease over time, with rare persistent cases beyond 12 months in that cohort [8]. Prospective follow‑up at 6 weeks and 6 months after IPP also found stable glans sensitivity, supporting recovery or lack of long‑term measurable deficit in many patients [7]. Case series of implant complications (e.g., infected or explanted devices) show sensory complaints clustered around episodes of infection, erosion, or explantation, i.e., tied to early/complication events [4] [9].
4. Risk differs by procedure, device, and complications
Not all penile procedures carry the same risk profile. Grafting for Peyronie’s disease, cosmetic subcutaneous implants (Penuma), and explantation after complications show higher frequencies of reported sensory change in the published series than standard IPP placements in experienced centers [8] [4] [5]. The professional literature and reviews also list altered penile sensation among possible postoperative complications that should be discussed during informed consent [2] [10].
5. Clinical meaning and patient expectations matter for satisfaction
Even modest or transient changes in sensation affect patient satisfaction: studies emphasize that altered sensation is among the items that reduce postoperative satisfaction and that mismatched expectations before surgery predict worse reported outcomes [2] [3]. High overall satisfaction with IPP (reported in other outcome literature) coexists with a minority who report sensory complaints, underscoring the central role of counseling [2] [11].
6. Limitations in current reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources show heterogeneity: small cohorts, different devices (IPP vs. Penuma), variable objective testing (biothesiometry, EMG, electrodermal activity), and divergent endpoints (patient report vs. physiologic measures). Large systematic reviews and registries are being published but comprehensive, standardized long‑term sensory outcome data across devices remain limited in the cited literature [12] [13]. Available sources do not mention long‑term quality‑of‑life trajectories tied exclusively to sensory changes beyond the series cited; thus broader population estimates are not found in current reporting.
Sources cited above as referenced: prospective biothesiometry study [7]; plaque incision and grafting sensory chronology [8]; Penuma complication series and explant sensory rates [4] [5] [6]; electrophysiology showing reduced electrodermal amplitude [1]; counseling and patient‑reported complications literature [2] [3]; reviews and device outcome context [11] [12].