Author:
Zugail Ahmed S.,Abdessater Maher,Althobity Abdulmajeed,Boustany Johnny,Nuernberg Mabel,Alhammadi Abdalla,Beley Sébastien
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Patients with proximal penile prosthetic cylindrical complications (PPPCC) can be treated with a direct crural technique without using the original traditional approach. In this article we present our novel direct crural approach for management of patients with PPPCC.
Materials and methods
Between 2014 and 2019, data were retrospectively collected from 13 patients who underwent surgical revision using our novel direct crural approach for PPPCC. The procedure commences with identification of the affected zone. The patient is in a low lithotomy position. A 2-centimeter longitudinal incision is made directly over the affected site. Dissection is carried down through Colles’ fascia, followed by a longitudinal incision through the tunica albuginea at the proximal part of the affected cylinder. Via the incision we can deliver out the cylinder and manage its problem.
Results
Mean operative time was 40 min. No intra or post-operative complications were reported. All patients (Mean age = 57) were discharged on the same day. Postoperative follow-up found correction of all existing deformities at month 1, 3 and 6. All patients were satisfied and reported less pain and faster recovery than the first procedure.
Conclusion
Our technique, which can be used for all types of penile prosthesis, is both feasible and safe. It may simplify PPPCC revision by avoiding adhesions below the original incision, without jeopardizing the already implanted materials or the urethra. It may also improve patients’ safety and satisfaction, by reducing iatrogenic injury and post-operative recovery time.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Urology,Reproductive Medicine
Reference13 articles.
1. Carson CC, Mulchy JJ, Govier FE. Efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long term multicenter study. J Urol. 2000;164:376–80.
2. Hatzimouratidis K, Giuliano F, Moncada I, Muneer A, Salonia A, Verze P. EAU Guidelines on erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, penile Curvature and Priapism. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Barcelona 2019. ISBN 978-94-92671-04-2.
3. Rajpurkar A, Dhabuwala CB. Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice. J Urol. 2003;170:159–63.
4. Hoffmann T, Glasziou P, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman D, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M, Lamb S, Dixon-Woods M, McCulloch P, Wyatt J, Chan A, Michie S. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.
5. Antonini G, Busetto GM, De Berardinis E, Giovannone R, Vicini P, Del Giudice F, Conti SL, Gentile V, Perito PE. Minimally invasive infrapubic inflatable penile prosthesis implant for erectile dysfunction: evaluation of efficacy, satisfaction profile and complications. Int J Impot Res. 2016;1:4–8.