Background Inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) with smaller diameter cylinders have been in use for over 30 years, yet the literature is sparse on their utilization patterns amongst prosthetic surgeons. Aim To understand current usage of small diameter penile implants (SDPI) among prosthetic surgeons. Methods IRB approval was obtained to conduct a survey of prosthetic surgeons. A 23-question online survey was distributed via email to physician members of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) and Society of Urologic Prosthesis Surgeons (SUPS). The survey included questions regarding surgeon experience and volume, frequency of SDPI utilization, indications for SDPI, surgical strategy in the setting of SDPI (approach, use of concordant modeling/grafting), reservoir and pump management, and perceived infection risk and patient satisfaction. Main Outcome Measure SDPI were utilized by the vast majority of respondents in certain clinical situations such as corporal fibrosis or anatomically small corpora, and surgeons have had a favorable experience with these as a final destination implant or as a place-holder until reimplantation with a normal diameter device. Results Fifty individuals responded to the survey, 48 of whom routinely utilized SDPI. The most common indication for SDPI placement was corporal fibrosis from prior infection, followed by anatomically small corpora and priapism. The most common maximal dilation diameter was 10 mm (47%), an additional 23% of respondents utilized SDPI with 11 mm dilation. 75.4% of respondents sometimes or always intended to upsize to standard diameter cylinders in the future. 68.8% of surgeons routinely counseled patients on the possibility of reduced grith and rigidity with SDPI. Patient satisfaction was perceived to be comparable to standard diameter cylinders in 56.3% of respondents, while the remaining 43.6% believed it to be lower than traditional cylinders. Utilization of SDPI can be an important tool for prosthetic surgeons faced with difficult cases due to corporal fibrosis or small corpora. This survey provides new insight into patterns of SDPI utilization by surgeons. A limitation of the study is that patient satisfaction is indirectly addressed through surgeons’ perception and experience, further research will be necessary to include patient questionnaires regarding device satisfaction. Conclusion SDPI are necessary in certain scenarios that preclude the use of normal diameter cylinders. These implants may offer satisfactory erections, but can also be upsized to standard diameter cylinders in the future.