Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?
ABSTRACT: Introduction: Previously, incisionless plication (IP) for correction of congenital penile curvature (CPC) has been performed after penile degloving via a circumscribing incision. Aim: To describe our experience with non-degloving incisionless penile plication (NDIP) for correction of CPC...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | Sexual Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116121001422 |
| _version_ | 1797707984486268928 |
|---|---|
| author | Samuel B. Kusin, BA Roger K. Khouri, Jr., MD Benjamin M. Dropkin, MD Peter N. Dietrich, MD Ellen E. Ward, BS Adam S. Baumgarten, MD Jagan K. Kansal, MD Amy I. Guise, MD Allen F. Morey, MD |
| author_facet | Samuel B. Kusin, BA Roger K. Khouri, Jr., MD Benjamin M. Dropkin, MD Peter N. Dietrich, MD Ellen E. Ward, BS Adam S. Baumgarten, MD Jagan K. Kansal, MD Amy I. Guise, MD Allen F. Morey, MD |
| author_sort | Samuel B. Kusin, BA |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT: Introduction: Previously, incisionless plication (IP) for correction of congenital penile curvature (CPC) has been performed after penile degloving via a circumscribing incision. Aim: To describe our experience with non-degloving incisionless penile plication (NDIP) for correction of CPC and compare these outcomes with those of men who underwent degloving incisionless penile plication (DIP). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of men ≤ 45 years of age who underwent incisionless penile plication for correction of CPC between 2008 and 2020 at two adult tertiary hospitals. Patients underwent either NDIP, performed through a 2-3 cm longitudinal incision along the proximal-to-mid shaft opposite the point of maximum penile curvature, or DIP via a sub-coronal circumscribing incision. Main Outcome Measures: Surgical and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the non-degloving and degloving groups. Results: Among the 38 men (mean age, 26 years) who met the inclusion criteria, 25 underwent NDIP, including 6 patients with biplanar curvature (2 Ventral, 4 Dorsal, 6 Lateral). Thirteen patients underwent DIP, including 1 patient with biplanar curvature (1 ventral, 1 lateral). Curvature reduction was 50 ± 23 degrees for the NDIP group and 36 ± 10 degrees for the DIP group (P = .04). Five (20%) patients in the NDIP group and nine (69%) patients in the DIP group experienced a reduction in stretched penile length following plication (SPL) (P = .01). One patient in the NDIP group underwent an additional plication for recurrent curvature. Conclusion: Both NDIP and DIP are safe and highly efficacious techniques for the correction of CPC.Kusin SB, Khouri RK, Dropkin BM, et al., Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?. Sex Med 2021;9:100462. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T06:15:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4ba84632efdf46938394af829fe416c2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2050-1161 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T06:15:35Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sexual Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-4ba84632efdf46938394af829fe416c22023-09-03T02:38:14ZengOxford University PressSexual Medicine2050-11612021-12-0196100462Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?Samuel B. Kusin, BA0Roger K. Khouri, Jr., MD1Benjamin M. Dropkin, MD2Peter N. Dietrich, MD3Ellen E. Ward, BS4Adam S. Baumgarten, MD5Jagan K. Kansal, MD6Amy I. Guise, MD7Allen F. Morey, MD8Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USADepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USADepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USADepartment of Urology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USADepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USADepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USADepartment of Urology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USADepartment of Urology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USADepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Corresponding Author: Allen F. Morey, MD, Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390-9110, Telephone: (214) 648-5698, Fax: (214) 648-6310.ABSTRACT: Introduction: Previously, incisionless plication (IP) for correction of congenital penile curvature (CPC) has been performed after penile degloving via a circumscribing incision. Aim: To describe our experience with non-degloving incisionless penile plication (NDIP) for correction of CPC and compare these outcomes with those of men who underwent degloving incisionless penile plication (DIP). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of men ≤ 45 years of age who underwent incisionless penile plication for correction of CPC between 2008 and 2020 at two adult tertiary hospitals. Patients underwent either NDIP, performed through a 2-3 cm longitudinal incision along the proximal-to-mid shaft opposite the point of maximum penile curvature, or DIP via a sub-coronal circumscribing incision. Main Outcome Measures: Surgical and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the non-degloving and degloving groups. Results: Among the 38 men (mean age, 26 years) who met the inclusion criteria, 25 underwent NDIP, including 6 patients with biplanar curvature (2 Ventral, 4 Dorsal, 6 Lateral). Thirteen patients underwent DIP, including 1 patient with biplanar curvature (1 ventral, 1 lateral). Curvature reduction was 50 ± 23 degrees for the NDIP group and 36 ± 10 degrees for the DIP group (P = .04). Five (20%) patients in the NDIP group and nine (69%) patients in the DIP group experienced a reduction in stretched penile length following plication (SPL) (P = .01). One patient in the NDIP group underwent an additional plication for recurrent curvature. Conclusion: Both NDIP and DIP are safe and highly efficacious techniques for the correction of CPC.Kusin SB, Khouri RK, Dropkin BM, et al., Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving?. Sex Med 2021;9:100462.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116121001422Congenital Penile CurvaturePlicationSurgical OutcomesNon-Degloving |
| spellingShingle | Samuel B. Kusin, BA Roger K. Khouri, Jr., MD Benjamin M. Dropkin, MD Peter N. Dietrich, MD Ellen E. Ward, BS Adam S. Baumgarten, MD Jagan K. Kansal, MD Amy I. Guise, MD Allen F. Morey, MD Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving? Sexual Medicine Congenital Penile Curvature Plication Surgical Outcomes Non-Degloving |
| title | Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving? |
| title_full | Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving? |
| title_fullStr | Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving? |
| title_short | Plication for Correction of Congenital Penile Curvature: With or Without Degloving? |
| title_sort | plication for correction of congenital penile curvature with or without degloving |
| topic | Congenital Penile Curvature Plication Surgical Outcomes Non-Degloving |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116121001422 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT samuelbkusinba plicationforcorrectionofcongenitalpenilecurvaturewithorwithoutdegloving AT rogerkkhourijrmd plicationforcorrectionofcongenitalpenilecurvaturewithorwithoutdegloving AT benjaminmdropkinmd plicationforcorrectionofcongenitalpenilecurvaturewithorwithoutdegloving AT peterndietrichmd plicationforcorrectionofcongenitalpenilecurvaturewithorwithoutdegloving AT ellenewardbs plicationforcorrectionofcongenitalpenilecurvaturewithorwithoutdegloving AT adamsbaumgartenmd plicationforcorrectionofcongenitalpenilecurvaturewithorwithoutdegloving AT jagankkansalmd plicationforcorrectionofcongenitalpenilecurvaturewithorwithoutdegloving AT amyiguisemd plicationforcorrectionofcongenitalpenilecurvaturewithorwithoutdegloving AT allenfmoreymd plicationforcorrectionofcongenitalpenilecurvaturewithorwithoutdegloving |