What validated questionnaires exist to measure sexual quality of life and orgasm function after penile prosthesis implantation?

1. QoLSPP — the first validated, prosthesis‑specific SQoL instrument

The QoLSPP (Quality of Life and Sexuality with Penile Prosthesis) was developed expressly to measure how penile prosthesis implantation affects patients’ quality of life and sexual satisfaction and is reported repeatedly as the first pathology‑specific validated tool in this space ^{[2] [1] [6]}; authors who created and validated it emphasize domains beyond raw device function—including partner relationship, social interaction and self‑esteem—which addresses a gap left by previous studies that focused narrowly on sexual performance ^{[2] [7]}.

2. SSIPI and other device‑focused validated surveys

Beyond QoLSPP, newer device‑specific instruments include the Satisfaction Survey for Inflatable Penile Implant (SSIPI), which has been developed and validated to measure satisfaction with inflatable implants, and is cited in reviews and long‑term outcome papers as an emerging standardized measure for IPP outcomes ^{[1] [3]}. The SSIPI’s emergence responds to longstanding heterogeneity in outcome reporting and the frequent historical use of nonvalidated or ad hoc questionnaires in implant studies ^{[1] [5]}.

3. Widely used validated general sexual‑function instruments (IIEF, EDITS, others)

Large numbers of studies continue to use validated, general sexual‑function tools such as the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS), and these instruments reliably capture domains including erectile function, intercourse satisfaction and the IIEF’s orgasmic subdomain, which has allowed authors to report measurable improvements in orgasmic function after prosthesis in many cohorts ^{[8] [9] [10] [4]}. However, multiple reviews note that these instruments were not specifically validated for prosthesis recipients, and thus they may miss implant‑specific concerns ^{[2] [5] [10]}.

4. How orgasm function has been measured and what the evidence shows

Orgasm capacity after prosthesis implantation is most commonly reported using the orgasmic function items embedded in general validated tools (for example the IIEF) and in cohort studies using a mixture of validated and nonvalidated questionnaires; several series documented improvements in orgasmic scores or preserved orgasmic capacity post‑implant, while some report minimal change for many patients—evidence that is consistent but heterogeneous across studies ^{[8] [11] [12] [9]}. Reviews caution that conclusions about orgasmic outcomes are limited by study design variability and by the fact that many historic reports relied on non‑specific or nonvalidated surveys ^{[5] [10]}.

5. Limitations, competing agendas and the research gap

The literature contains an implicit tension: device manufacturers and implant centers have incentives to report high satisfaction rates, and until QoLSPP and SSIPI were available many studies relied on nonvalidated, center‑specific tools that inflate comparability and complicate meta‑analysis ^{[5] [2] [10]}. Moreover, some translations or versions (for example English QoLSPP in certain recent studies) have been used before formal validation in that language, which again raises caution about cross‑study comparability ^[13]. The pragmatic research agenda is clear: wider adoption of QoLSPP and SSIPI, routine reporting of IIEF orgasmic subscales for continuity, and prospective validation across languages and diverse patient groups.

6. Bottom line

For measuring sexual quality of life after penile prosthesis, the QoLSPP is the principal validated, prosthesis‑specific instrument; SSIPI offers a validated inflatable‑implant satisfaction tool; and the IIEF and EDITS remain validated, general measures that capture orgasm function and other sexual domains but are not prosthesis‑specific—researchers and clinicians should therefore pair prosthesis‑specific tools (QoLSPP/SSIPI) with established instruments (IIEF/EDITS) while noting current limitations in cross‑study standardization and language validation ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.