Penile shortening complaints in males with erectile dysfunction: a narrative review on penile lengthening procedures during penile prosthesis surgery.
Penile lengthening
inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP)
penile augmentation
penile length restoration
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
17
11
2020
accepted:
23
03
2021
entrez:
23
7
2021
pubmed:
24
7
2021
medline:
24
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients complaining of short penile length pose a challenge in urology practice. Those men who present seeking penile lengthening surgery usually overestimate 'normal' penile length, and may in often cases relate their penile length with the degree of masculinity and self-esteem. Penile prosthetic devices are the gold standard treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) after failure of conservative options. Penile shortening is the most prevalent long-term complaint after successful inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement. This has a significant impact on patient's overall satisfaction and quality of life. Using PubMed, we performed a thorough literature review of the current procedures of preservation or enhancement of penile length as well as reported perioperative protocols in patients undergoing penile prosthesis (PP) insertion. Keywords used were "penile lengthening", "penile enhancement", "penile girth", "inflatable penile prosthesis" and "glans augmentation". Several surgical techniques can be offered in the setting of penile shortening concurrently with PP insertion, e.g., sub-coronal approach of PP placement, sliding technique, modified sliding technique (MoST), multiple-slide technique (MuST), and tunica mesh expansion procedure (TMEP). Adjuvant techniques can also improve subjective penile length include, ventral phalloplasty, suprapubic lipectomy, suspensory ligament release and use of expanding penile implants. Preoperative protocols including use of a vacuum erectile device, traction therapy also seem to improve postoperative outcomes, minimizing postoperative pain, and encouraging the early device use. Currently, there is no consensus among experts on a particular lengthening procedure or when they can be performed to optimize outcomes. Furthermore, it is imperative to set proper expectations before surgery, with extensive patient and partner counseling. When used in the properly selected patient, penile lengthening procedures show promising results with minimal complication rates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34295751
doi: 10.21037/tau-21-27
pii: tau-10-06-2658
pmc: PMC8261431
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
2658-2668Informations de copyright
2021 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-21-27). The series “Controversies and Considerations of Penile Surgery” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Adv Urol. 2012;2012:314612
pubmed: 22811703
J Sex Med. 2006 May;3(3):550-3
pubmed: 16681481
Int J Impot Res. 2008 Nov-Dec;20(6):519-29
pubmed: 18496548
Fertil Steril. 2020 Aug;114(2):233-238
pubmed: 32650948
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012 Aug;36(4):813-8
pubmed: 22527585
Ann Plast Surg. 1987 Aug;19(2):131-4
pubmed: 3662345
Transl Androl Urol. 2013 Mar;2(1):67-73
pubmed: 26816726
Asian J Androl. 2016 Jan-Feb;18(1):114-7
pubmed: 26112480
Eur Urol. 2005 Jul;48(1):121-7; discussion 127-8
pubmed: 15967261
J Sex Med. 2007 Sep;4(5):1494-9
pubmed: 17727355
J Sex Med. 2020 Oct;17(10):2093-2103
pubmed: 32636162
Urology. 2012 Dec;80(6):1293-6
pubmed: 23102441
J Urol. 1995 Feb;153(2):368-70
pubmed: 7815586
J Sex Med. 2008 Sep;5(9):2221-8; discussion 2229-30
pubmed: 18637996
J Sex Med. 2012 Jan;9(1):316-21
pubmed: 22023552
Urology. 2012 Jun;79(6):1310-5
pubmed: 22521187
J Sex Med. 2008 Sep;5(9):2231-7
pubmed: 18657262
J Sex Med. 2008 Sep;5(9):2179-84
pubmed: 18638001
Transl Androl Urol. 2016 Jun;5(3):351-62
pubmed: 27298782
Arch Sex Behav. 2015 Nov;44(8):2311-21
pubmed: 25731908
J Urol. 2018 Sep;200(3):633-641
pubmed: 29746858
BJU Int. 2016 May;117(5):814-20
pubmed: 26688436
Int J Impot Res. 2002 Aug;14(4):283-6
pubmed: 12152118
BJU Int. 2015 Dec;116(6):965-72
pubmed: 25644141
J Sex Med. 2012 Sep;9(9):2389-95
pubmed: 22429331
J Sex Med. 2018 Dec;15(12):1818-1823
pubmed: 30527055
Transl Androl Urol. 2017 Nov;6(Suppl 5):S776-S794
pubmed: 29238658
Sex Med Rev. 2020 Jul 9;:
pubmed: 32653404
Urology. 1973 Jul;2(1):80-2
pubmed: 4766860
J Sex Med. 2006 Jan;3(1):155-60
pubmed: 16409230
Eur Urol. 2002 Sep;42(3):245-53; discussion 252-3
pubmed: 12234509
J Sex Med. 2012 Jul;9(7):1945-53
pubmed: 22568607
J Urol. 2015 Sep;194(3):745-53
pubmed: 26066402
J Sex Med. 2006 Jul;3(4):743-748
pubmed: 16839332
J Sex Med. 2018 Feb;15(2):261-269
pubmed: 29275049
J Sex Med. 2010 Jul;7(7):2608-16
pubmed: 20233283
Sex Med Rev. 2019 Jul;7(3):535-547
pubmed: 30612977
Curr Urol Rep. 2009 Nov;10(6):475-7
pubmed: 19863860
J Sex Med. 2016 Sep;13(9):1414-1422
pubmed: 27461963
J Urol. 2007 Jan;177(1):128-30
pubmed: 17162022
Urology. 2017 Sep;107:144-148
pubmed: 28648967
Eur Urol. 2003 Aug;44(2):245-53
pubmed: 12875945
J Sex Med. 2015 May;12(5):1242-7
pubmed: 25809129
J Urol. 1996 Jan;155(1):135-7
pubmed: 7490811
J Urol. 2002 Jun;167(6):2502-6
pubmed: 11992067