The clinical significance of imperfection: is idiopathic corporal asymmetry related to curvature during penile prosthesis placement?
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:
16 Feb 2023
16 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
05
01
2023
accepted:
27
01
2023
revised:
23
01
2023
entrez:
16
2
2023
pubmed:
17
2
2023
medline:
17
2
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Patient satisfaction after inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) has been linked to preexisting curvature; however the association with intraoperative asymmetric corporal measurements (ACM) has not been well described. We sought to identify incidence of ACM during IPP surgery, and relationship to penile curvature. A retrospective review of all patients undergoing primary IPP placement between 6/2019 and 6/2021 was performed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with ACM and need for adjunct straightening techniques. A total of 273 patients underwent primary IPP. 27.8% had Peyronie's disease (PD) diagnosed preoperatively or detected intraoperatively. ACM was identified in 20.1% (55/273) patients. There was no significant difference in ACM in PD versus non-PD patients (p = 0.55). Most patients with ACM (78.2%, 43/55) underwent placement of asymmetric device. ACM did not predict need for invasive straightening maneuvers (p = 0.12). However ACM patients were significantly more likely to have mild residual curvature than those with symmetry (p < 0.0001). Our study is first to address management of idiopathic ACM and association with curvature, providing new insight into a common situation. While ACM was detected in 20%, it did not predict need for adjunct straightening techniques. Our findings may provide reassurance to urologists troubleshooting idiopathic ACM during corporal dilation during IPP surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36797455
doi: 10.1038/s41443-023-00669-6
pii: 10.1038/s41443-023-00669-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Govier FE, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ, Pritchett TR, Kramer-Levien D. Mechanical reliability, surgical complications, and patient and partner satisfaction of the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1998;52:282–6.
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00177-0
pubmed: 9697795
Mulhall JP, Ahmed A, Branch J, Parker M. Serial assessment of efficacy and satisfaction profiles following penile prosthesis surgery. J Urol. 2003;169:1429–33.
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000056047.74268.9c
pubmed: 12629377
El-Sakka AI. Prevalence of Peyronie’s disease among patients with erectile dysfunction. Eur Urol. 2006;49:564–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.10.026
pubmed: 16386353
Nehra A, Alterowitz R, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, Heidelbaugh JJ, et al. Peyronie’s disease: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2015;194:745–53.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.05.098
pubmed: 26066402
pmcid: 5027990
Henry GD, Kansal NS, Callaway M, Grigsby T, Henderson J, Noble J, et al. Centers of excellence concept and penile prostheses: an outcome analysis. J Urol. 2009;181:1264–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.157
pubmed: 19152945
Montorsi F, Rigatti P, Carmignani G, Corbu C, Campo B, Ordesi G, et al. AMS three-piece inflatable implants for erectile dysfunction: a long-term multi-institutional study in 200 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2000;37:50–5.
doi: 10.1159/000020099
pubmed: 10671785
Henry GD, Jennermann C, Eid JF. Evaluation of satisfaction and axial rigidity with Titan XL cylinders. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:896070.
doi: 10.1155/2012/896070
pubmed: 22997510
pmcid: 3446653
Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, Alzweri LM, Hellstrom WJG. Penile prosthesis complications: planning, prevention, and decision making. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:349–59.
doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.04.002
pubmed: 30033128
Henry GD, Mahle P, Caso J, Eisenhart E, Carrion R, Kramer A. Surgical techniques in penoscrotal implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis: a guide to increasing patient satisfaction and surgeon ease. Sex Med Rev. 2015;3:36–47.
doi: 10.1002/smrj.39
pubmed: 27784571
Chung PH, Scott JF, Morey AF. High patient satisfaction of inflatable penile prosthesis insertion with synchronous penile plication for erectile dysfunction and Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2014;11:1593–8.
doi: 10.1111/jsm.12530
pubmed: 24708140
Hatzichristodoulou G, Yang DY, Ring JD, Hebert KJ, Ziegelman MJ, Köhler TS. Multicenter experience using collagen fleece for plaque incision with grafting to correct residual curvature at the time of inflatable penile prosthesis placement in patients with peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2020;17:1168–74.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.02.019
pubmed: 32198103
Tausch TJ, Chung PH, Siegel JA, Gliga L, Klein AK, Morey AF. Intraoperative decision-making for precise penile straightening during inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Urology. 2015;86:1048–52.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.042
pubmed: 26190086
Gupta NK, Ring J, Trost L, Wilson SK, Köhler TS. The penoscrotal surgical approach for inflatable penile prosthesis placement. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:628–38.
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.07.32
pubmed: 28904895
pmcid: 5583046
Agrawal V, Ralph D. An audit of implanted penile prostheses in the UK. BJU Int. 2006;98:393–5.
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06261.x
pubmed: 16879684
Oberlin DT, Matulewicz RS, Bachrach L, Hofer MD, Brannigan RE, Flury SC. National practice patterns of treatment of erectile dysfunction with penile prosthesis implantation. J Urol. 2015;193:2040–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.11.095
pubmed: 25457477
Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN. Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology. 2003;62:918–21.
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00665-4
pubmed: 14624920
Akin-Olugbade O, Parker M, Guhring P, Mulhall J. Determinants of patient satisfaction following penile prosthesis surgery. J Sex Med. 2006;3:743–8.
doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00278.x
pubmed: 16839332
Trost LW, Baum N, Hellstrom WJG. Managing the difficult penile prosthesis patient. J Sex Med. 2013;10:893–906; quiz 907.
Welliver C. Optimizing outcomes in the virgin penile implant patient. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:14.
doi: 10.1007/s11934-019-0876-6
pubmed: 30729323
Welliver C, Kottwitz M, Ahmad AE, Wilson SK, Köhler TS. Manufacturers’ data show increasing implanted cylinder sizes and measured corporal lengths in inflatable penile implants. World J Urol. 2016;34:993–8.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1705-2
pubmed: 26475275
Djordjevic ML, Kojovic V. Penile prosthesis implantation and tunica albuginea incision without grafting in the treatment of Peyronie’s disease with erectile dysfunction. Asian J Androl. 2013;15:391–4.
doi: 10.1038/aja.2012.149
pubmed: 23435473
pmcid: 3739639
Lucas JW, Gross MS, Barlotta RM, Sudhakar A, Hoover CRV, Wilson SK, et al. Optimal modeling: an updated method for safely and effectively eliminating curvature during penile prosthesis implantation. Urology. 2020;146:133–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.055
pubmed: 32961224
Deebel NA, Scarberry K, Dutta R, Matz E, Terlecki RP. Salvage penile plication is an effective modality for resolving residual curvature after surgery for peyronie’s disease. Sex Med. 2020;8:686–90.
doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2020.09.001
pubmed: 33036958
pmcid: 7691978
Berookhim BM, Karpman E, Carrion R. Adjuvant maneuvers for residual curvature correction during penile prosthesis implantation in men with peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2015;12:449–54.
doi: 10.1111/jsm.13001
pubmed: 26565576
Yachia D, Beyar M, Aridogan IA, Dascalu S. The incidence of congenital penile curvature. J Urol. 1993;1501:1478–9.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)35816-0