To compare the patient’s satisfaction and long-term results of 2 penile plication procedures in patients with penile curvature.
This retrospective study included 387 patients with congenital penile curvature (n = 260) and Peyronie’s disease (n = 127) who underwent surgical correction of penile curvature with penile plication procedures. Of the patients, 202 underwent plication of tunica albuginea with the Lue’s 16-dot technique, while 185 underwent highly superficial excision of tunica albuginea with the modified Nesbit corporoplasty. Surgical outcomes and patient’s satisfaction were compared between the 2 techniques in all patients.
The mean duration of surgery was significantly shorter in the 16-dot plication technique (48.1 ± 7.5 minutes), compared with the modified Nesbit corporoplasty (63 ± 16.9 minutes) (P = .001). Complete penile straightening was achieved in 87.6% of the patients who underwent 16-dot plication technique and in 89.7% of the patients who underwent modified Nesbit plication, revealing no difference (P = .514). The rates of penile sensory loss (P = .001) and de-novo erectile dysfunction (P = .016) were significantly higher in the modified Nesbit corporoplasty than in the 16-dot plication technique, but rate of suture related complications was significantly higher in the 16-dot plication technique than in the modified Nesbit corporoplasty (P = .001). The patients with congenital penile curvature had significantly less ratio of postoperative penile length loss and de-novo erectile dysfunction than Peyronie’s disease patients.
Overall, both surgical techniques have very high success and satisfaction rates with very low complication rates. However, the types of complications are significantly different between the 2 surgical procedures. Therefore, patients with penile curvature should be informed about outcomes of penile plication procedures, and surgical method should be preferred based on patient’s preference and surgeon’s experience.
Urology. 2019 Apr 04 [Epub]
Selahittin Çayan, Ramazan Aşcı, Ozan Efesoy, Fatih Kocamanoğlu, Erdem Akbay, Önder Yaman
University of Mersin School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Mersin, Turkey. Electronic address: ., Ondokuz Mayıs University School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Samsun, Turkey., Mersin City Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Mersin, Turkey., University of Mersin School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Mersin, Turkey., Ankara University School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Ankara, Turkey.