Cargando…

Penile Wobble Effect: Proximal Corporal Deformities as a Cause of Penile Prosthesis Failure

INTRODUCTION: Penile structural defects can contribute toward penile prosthesis (PP) surgical complications and suboptimal outcomes. Despite modern improvements in techniques of inflatable PP (IPP) surgeries, suboptimal outcomes arise secondary to unrecognized proximal corporal abnormalities. AIM: T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rajih, Emad, Burnett, Arthur L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6085228/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29730134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2018.04.004
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Penile structural defects can contribute toward penile prosthesis (PP) surgical complications and suboptimal outcomes. Despite modern improvements in techniques of inflatable PP (IPP) surgeries, suboptimal outcomes arise secondary to unrecognized proximal corporal abnormalities. AIM: To describe a new observation of IPP failure (wobbly penis) secondary to proximal corporal deformities. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the Johns Hopkins institutional database of patients who had IPP surgery from May 2006 to March 2017. All cases requiring surgical revisions secondary to proximal corporal deformities were identified. Exclusion criteria included patients who had incidentally discovered proximal corporal deformities intraoperatively or were documented preoperatively to have had a corporal defect. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Successful reimplantation of a functionally intact PP device. RESULTS: On clinical grounds, we identified 5 patients with properly cycling but unstable prosthetic devices that were associated with proximal corporal dilatation (proximally from the penoscrotal junction). All patients underwent reduction corporoplasty with prosthesis replacements consisting of controlled expansion IPPs. 3 patients had undergone previous device replacements because of intact cycling but unstable and unusable IPP devices, whereas 2 had a single previous device insertion. Mean age at revision was 67 years. Median IPP duration was 17 years. Median number of previous IPP surgeries was 3. All patients reported IPP stability and satisfaction after revision (median follow-up = 6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Proximal corporal deformities could account for IPP failure. This condition can be under-recognized as observed in the present cases of multiple revisions with a normally cycling device that was not usable. Proper recognition of this problem allows the opportunity for surgical correction with reduction corporoplasty. Rajih E, Burnett AL. Penile Wobble Effect: Proximal Corporal Deformities as a Cause of Penile Prosthesis Failure. Sex Med 2018;6:267–271.