Imaging Review of Male Genitourinary Devices and Augmentations

Radiology review catalogues imaging appearances of penile implants, incontinence devices, cosmetic augmentations, and BPH hardware

Journal: European Journal of Radiology | Published: 2026-03-27 | Type: Review | PMID: 41932104 Authors: Chung AD (Queen's University), Aswani Y (University of Iowa), Tsai LL (Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard) Funding/COI: Funding not disclosed; authors declare no competing financial interests

Summary

This is a radiology reference article, not a clinical study. Its purpose is to help radiologists correctly identify male genitourinary hardware on imaging — inflatable and malleable penile prostheses, cosmetic shaft augmentations (including the Himplant™, penile pearls, and free silicone injections), incontinence devices (artificial urinary sphincters, urethral inserts, penile clamps), prostatic urethral lifts for BPH, and the SpaceOAR™ hydrogel spacer used during prostate radiotherapy. No new data are generated or analyzed.

Claims

• Inflatable penile prostheses account for the majority of implantable ED devices; paired cylinders sit within the corpora cavernosa and inflate to produce erection
• Malleable prostheses have lower mechanical failure rates but are less cosmetically acceptable and suit patients with reduced manual dexterity
• Cosmetic penile shaft augmentations include the medically placed Himplant™ and non-medical modifications: penile pearls (subdermal beads) and free silicone injection
• Incontinence management spans non-invasive options (Contino urethral insert, penile clamp) to the surgically implanted artificial urinary sphincter
• Prostatic urethral lifts address urinary retention from benign prostatic hyperplasia
• SpaceOAR™ hydrogel is placed between the prostate and rectum to reduce rectal radiation dose during prostate radiotherapy

Study Quality

There is no study to quality-assess in the conventional sense. This is a narrative imaging review — no patient cohort, no systematic literature search methodology described, no statistical analysis, no comparison group. The paper's value is entirely as a reference compendium for radiologists who encounter these devices incidentally or in workup.

Authorship spans three academic radiology departments (Queen's University, University of Iowa, Harvard/MGH), which adds some breadth, but the review's scope and inclusion criteria are not formally stated. It is unclear whether the device selection is exhaustive or representative of the authors' institutional experience.

Red Flags

• No original data; no patient outcomes reported
• Narrative review without a described systematic search — selection bias in which devices are covered is possible
• Funding source not listed; unknown whether device manufacturers provided imaging materials or case examples
• No methodology for how imaging criteria were established or validated

Strengths

• Multi-institutional authorship from recognized academic centers
• Covers a genuinely diverse and underrepresented topic — most radiology trainees encounter these devices without preparation
• Includes both mainstream implants and less-discussed non-medical modifications (penile pearls, free silicone), which carry distinct complication profiles
• No competing interests declared

Verdict

This paper is a practical reference for radiologists, not evidence for or against any device's efficacy. If you are a radiologist who has stared at an unexpected pelvic implant and reached for a textbook, this review fills a real gap. For anyone else — clinicians, patients, researchers evaluating outcomes — there is nothing to take away here beyond awareness that the imaging literature on this hardware exists and is growing.