Surgical treatment of penile foreign body granuloma: Penile shaft reconstruction with single‐ versus two‐stage scrotal flap techniques

Abstract

ObjectivesTo report outcomes of surgical treatment in patients with penile foreign body granuloma and compare surgical outcomes between single‐ and two‐stage scrotal flap reconstructions.MethodsMedical records of patients with penile foreign body granuloma who underwent surgical treatment were reviewed. Patients with single‐ and two‐stage scrotal flap reconstructions were compared.ResultsForty‐two patients underwent surgical treatment from January 1, 2018 to October 31, 2022. Twenty‐three patients underwent single‐stage reconstruction with bilateral scrotal flap while 12 patients underwent two‐stage repair with 19 operations. Five patients underwent circumcision; one had excision with primary closure. Another patient underwent reconstruction by penile skin preservation technique. There was no statistically significant differences between single‐ and two‐stage groups in wound infection (8.69% vs. 0%, RR 2.71, 95%CI; 0.14–52.29), wound dehiscence (21.74% vs. 8.33%, RR 2.61, 95%CI 0.34–19.87), reoperation rate (26.08% vs. 8.33%, RR 3.13, 95%CI; 0.42–23.10). Postoperative fever was significantly higher in single‐stage group (56.52 vs. 8.33%, RR 6.78, 95%CI; 1.01–43.83). Total length of hospital stay was shorter in single‐stage group (7.43 ± 3.19 days vs. 10.86 ± 1.57 days, MD −3.42, 95%CI; −5.28 to −1.57). Incidence of patients without Clavien–Dindo surgical complications was significantly lower in single‐stage group (43.48% vs. 83.33%, RR 0.53, 95%CI; 0.31–0.89).ConclusionsBoth single‐ and two‐stage techniques may be considered for penile foreign body granuloma reconstruction. Although the hospital stay was longer in two‐stage group, the complication rates were lower.