Introduction: Erectile Dysfunction (ED) impacts nearly 150 million men worldwide and 3.5 million men in France. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP) placement is considered a third-line treatment after oral pharmacological treatments and intracavernous injections. This surgery is often performed through a penoscrotal approach due to the theoretical risk of nerve damage associated with infrapubic approach. However, the latter seems to allow faster activation of the prosthesis, with similar complication and satisfaction rates. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perioperative and mid-term outcomes following IPP implantation using the infrapubic approach. Method: The medical datas of all patients who underwent infla penile implant placement via the infrapubic approach between 2010 and 2022 at two centers (one public and one private) were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative data (etiology of erectile dysfunction, previous treatments) and intraoperative data (type of implant used, operative time, complications such as misplacement) were collected. Postoperative complications occurring within 30 days after implantation (infection, hematoma, pain) were also recorded. Device survival without explantation or reoperation was assessed from the date of implantation to the last follow-up visit, using the Kaplan-Meier method. Sexual function and satisfaction were assessed at the end of the follow-up period. Results: We included 116 patients in the study. The median age was 63 years. The main ED etiologies were prostatectomy (44.8%, n= 52), vascular (20.7%, n= 24), and diabetes (16.4%, n=19). The median operative time was 75 minutes. The median follow-up time was 81.5 months. We observed a 3.4% (4 patients) device infection rate, with one early and three late infections. Eleven patients (9.5%) required late reoperation: three patients for migration, one patient for implant lengthening, one patient for implant dysfunction, and two patients for unknown reasons. Four patients (3.4%) required late device explantation : two for late infections, one for chronic pain and one for unknown reasons. The median Patient Global Improvement Index score at the end of follow-up was 2/7 (better). Thirty-one patients (26.7%) reported glans hypoesthesia. Conclusion: The infrapubic approach is a reliable and reproducible technique. Comparative prospective studies could help clarify its causal link to glans hypoesthesia and guide surgeons in selecting the most appropriate surgical approach