Long-term outcomes of surgery for Peyronie's disease: focus on patient satisfaction.
Journal
International journal of impotence research
ISSN: 1476-5489
Titre abrégé: Int J Impot Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9007383
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
28
07
2019
accepted:
23
04
2020
revised:
07
04
2020
pubmed:
6
5
2020
medline:
22
4
2021
entrez:
6
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Immediate outcomes of surgery for Peyronie's disease (PD) are fairly easy to analyze. However, it is the patient-reported long-term outcomes which eventually determine the success of PD treatment. The goal of this observational study was to evaluate patients' satisfaction with results of surgical treatment for PD at long-term follow-up. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were completely satisfied with their erectile function and penile appearance. We retrospectively identified 374 patients who underwent surgery for PD (median follow-up: 9.5 years) and attempted to invite them for follow-up visit; 342 patients were available for follow-up. Only 285 (83.3%) were sexually active. Among all patients, 197 (57.6%) were completely satisfied with penile appearance; among sexually active patients, 139 (40.6%) were completely satisfied with their erections. Only 101 patients (29.5%) were completely satisfied with penile appearance and erectile function. Logistic regression analysis revealed preoperative IIEF-EF score (OR = 1.668 per 1 point; 95% CI 1.469-1.894), tunica albuginea plication (OR = 5.599; 95% CI = 1.014-30.92), use of saphenous vein (OR = 8.517; 95% CI = 2.491-29.115), and cadaveric pericardium (OR = 61.388; 95% CI = 7.674-491.11) as significant predictors of satisfaction with erectile function. Severity of curvature (OR = 0.926 per 5°; 95% CI = 0.907-0.946) and tunica plication (OR = 0.117; 95% CI = 0.019-0.738) were negative predictors of satisfaction with penile appearance. Preoperative IIEF-EF (OR = 1.497 per 1 point; 95% CI = 1.322-1.694), severity of penile curvature (OR = 0.967 per 5°; 95% CI = 0.95-0.983), and use of pericardium allograft (OR = 10.728; 95% CI = 1.363-84.46) were predictors of both endpoints (satisfaction with erectile function and cosmesis). Despite excellent surgical outcomes in PD, patients' satisfaction with penile appearance and erectile function is far from absolute and depends on many patient-related and treatment-related factors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32366986
doi: 10.1038/s41443-020-0297-6
pii: 10.1038/s41443-020-0297-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
332-338Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Chung E. Penile reconstructive surgery in Peyronie disease: challenges in restoring normal penis size, shape, and function. World J Mens Health. 2018;36:e10.
doi: 10.5534/wjmh.170053
Krishnappa P, Fernandez-Pascual E, Carballido J, Moncada I, Lledo-Garcia E, Martinez-Salamanca JI. Surgical management of Peyronie’s disease with co-existent erectile dysfunction. Sex Med. 2019;7:361–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2019.08.009
Chung E, Clendinning E, Lessard L, Brock G. Five-year follow-up of Peyronie’s graft surgery: outcomes and patient satisfaction. J Sex Med. 2011;8:594–600.
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02102.x
Morgado A, Morgado MR, Tomada N. Penile lengthening with porcine small intestinal submucosa grafting in Peyronie’s disease treatment: long‐term surgical outcomes, patients’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction predictors. Andrology. 2018;6:909–15.
doi: 10.1111/andr.12522
Soave A, Laurich S, Dahlem R, Vetterlein MW, Engel O, Nieder T, et al. Negative self-perception and self-attitude of sexuality is a risk factor for patient dissatisfaction following penile surgery with small intestinal submucosa grafting for the treatment of severe Peyronie’s disease. J Clin Med. 2019;8:1121.
doi: 10.3390/jcm8081121
Hatzichristodoulou G, Osmonov D, Kübler H, Hellstrom WJG, Yafi FA. Contemporary review of grafting techniques for the surgical treatment of Peyronie’s disease. Sex Med Rev. 2017;5:544–52.
doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.01.006
Ziegelmann MJ, Farrell MR, Levine LA. Modern treatment strategies for penile prosthetics in Peyronie’s disease: a contemporary clinical review. Asian J Androl. 2020;22:51–9.
doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_81_19
Rice PG, Somani BK, Rees RW. Twenty years of plaque incision and grafting for Peyronie’s disease: a review of literature. Sex Med. 2019;7:115–28.
doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2019.01.001
Chen J, Godschalk M, Katz PG, Mulligan T. Peyronie’s-like plaque after penile injection of prostaglandin E1. J Urol. 1994;152:961–2.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)32624-1
Chung E, Wang R, Ralph D, Levine L, Brock G. A worldwide survey on Peyronie’s disease surgical practice patterns among surgeons. J Sex Med. 2018;15:568–75.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.01.025
Garcia-Gomez B, Ralph D, Levine L, Moncada-Iribarren I, Djinovic R, Albersen M, et al. Grafts for Peyronie’s disease: a comprehensive review. Andrology. 2018;6:117–26.
doi: 10.1111/andr.12421
Khera M, Bella A, Karpman E, Brant W, Christine B, Kansas B, et al. Penile prosthesis implantation in patients with Peyronie’s disease: results of the PROPPER study demonstrates a decrease in patient-reported depression. J Sex Med. 2018;15:786–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.02.024
Wallen JJ, Madiraju SK, Wang R, Henry GD. Implementation of length expanding inflatable penile prosthesis is not sufficient to prevent postsurgical penile shortening. Asian J Androl. 2019;21:98–100.
doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_77_18
Al-Thakafi S, Al-Hathal N. Peyronie’s disease: a literature review on epidemiology, genetics, pathophysiology, diagnosis and work-up. Transl Androl Urol. 2016;5:280–9.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2016.04.05
Reddy RS, McKibben MJ, Fuchs JS, Shakir N, Scott J, Morey AF. Plication for severe Peyronie’s deformities has similar long-term outcomes to milder cases. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1498–505.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.08.006
Falcone M, Preto M, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Garaffa G, Sedigh O, et al. A comparative study between 2 different grafts used as patches after plaque incision and inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for end-stage Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2018;15:848–52.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.04.632
Askari M, Mohamad Mirjalili SA, Bozorg M, Azizi R, Namiranian N. The prevalence of Peyronie’s disease in diabetic patients—2018—Yazd. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2019;13:604–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2018.11.039
Satyanarayan A, Singla N, Morey AF. Penile ossification: a reconstructive challenge. Rev Urol. 2017;19:64–7.
pubmed: 28522935
pmcid: 5434841
Dalkin BL, Carter MF. Venogenic impotence following dermal graft repair for Peyronie’s disease. J Urol. 1991;146:849–51.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)37941-7
Chow AK, Sidelsky SA, Levine LA. Surgical outcomes of plaque excision and grafting and supplemental tunica albuginea plication for treatment of Peyronie’s disease with severe compound curvature. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1021–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.04.642
Mulhall J, Anderson M, Parker M. A surgical algorithm for men with combined Peyronie’s disease and erectile dysfunction: functional and satisfaction outcomes. J Sex Med. 2005;2:132–8.
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20113.x
Baldini A, Morel-Journel N, Paparel P, Ruffion A, Terrier JE. Patient-reported long-term sexual outcomes following plication surgery for penile curvature: a retrospective 58-patient study. Prog Urol. 2017;27:10–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2016.08.018